• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Международные организации530
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы1731
      • Показать ещё
      Разное751
      • Показать ещё
      Люди399
      • Показать ещё
      Компании243
      • Показать ещё
      Издания45
      • Показать ещё
      Формат26
      Показатели61
      • Показать ещё
      Сферы12
17 января, 15:30

С кем Россия будет поднимать мировую экономику

Россия ищет совпадающие интересы с теми, кто готов делать так, чтобы мировая экономика развивалась на благо всех без исключения стран и народов. Такое заявление сделал в ходе пресс-конференции глава российского МИД Сергей Лавров 17 января.  Начальник сектора международных экономических организаций Центра экономических исследований РИСИ Вячеслав Холодков напоминает, что санкционная политика Запада последних лет вынудила Россию […]

Выбор редакции
17 января, 05:18

Без заголовка

Азиатский банк инфраструктурных инвестиций /АБИИ/ в понедельник назвал приоритетные стратегические задачи на текущий год.

Выбор редакции
17 января, 05:18

АБИИ выделил приоритеты на 2017 год

Азиатский банк инфраструктурных инвестиций /АБИИ/ в понедельник назвал приоритетные стратегические задачи на текущий год.

Выбор редакции
17 января, 05:11

The AIIB One Year In: Not As Scary As Washington Thought

The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank just completed its first year in operation. What did it do and what impact did it have?

16 января, 10:44

Китай не получит прибыли от закрытия ТТП

Ожидаемый выход США из ранее широко разрекламированного соглашения о Транс-Тихоокеанском партнерстве (ТТП) может оказать поддержку другой торговой сделке с участием Китая, но некоторые аналитики не уверены в этом, пишет CNBC.

16 января, 10:44

Китай не получит прибыли от закрытия ТТП

Ожидаемый выход США из ранее широко разрекламированного соглашения о Транстихоокеанском партнерстве (ТТП) может оказать поддержку другой торговой сделке с участием Китая, но некоторые аналитики не уверены в этом, пишет CNBC.

16 января, 06:15

Trump's Delusion: Halting Eurasian Integration And Saving 'US World Order'

Submitted by Federico Pieraccini via Strategic-Culture.org, The preceding three parts of this series analyzed the mechanisms that drive great powers.   The most in-depth understanding of the issues concerned the determination of the objectives and logic that accompany the expansion of an empire.   Geopolitical theories, the concrete application of foreign-policy doctrines, and concrete actions that the United States employed to aspire to global dominance were examined.   Finally, the last bit of analysis focused particularly on how Iran, China and Russia have adopted over the years a variety of cultural, economic and military moves to repel the continual assault on their sovereignty by the West with specific attention was given to the American drive for global hegemony and how this has actually accelerated the end of the 'unipolar moment', impelling the emergence of a multipolar world order.   In this fourth and final analysis I will focus on a possible strategic shift in the approach to foreign policy from Washington. The most likely hypothesis suggests that Trump intends to attempt to prevent the ongoing integration between Russia, China and Iran. The failed foreign-policy strategy of the neoconservatives and neoliberals has served to dramatically reduce Washington's role and influence in the world. Important alliances are being forged without seeking the assent of the United States, and the world model envisioned in the early 1990s – from Bush to Kagan and all the signatories of the PNAC founding statement of principles – is increasingly coming undone. Donald Trump’s victory represents, in all likelihood, the last decisive blow to a series of foreign-policy strategies that in the end undermined the much-prized leadership of the United States. The ceasefire in Syria, reached thanks to an agreement between Turkey and Russia, notably excluded the United States. The military, media, financial and cultural assault successfully prosecuted over decades by Washington finally seems to have met its Waterloo at the hands of the axis represented by Iran, Russia and China. The recent media successes (RT, Press TV and many alternative media), political resistance (Assad is still president of Syria), diplomatic struggles (negotiations in Syria without Washington as an intermediary) and military planning (Liberation of Aleppo from terrorists) are a result of the efforts of Iran, Russia and China. Their success in all these fields of operations are having direct consequences and implications for the internal affairs of countries like the United Kingdom and the United States. The relentless efforts by the majority of Western political representatives for a successful model of globalization has created a parasitic system of turbo capitalism that entails a complete loss of sovereignty by America’s allies. Brexit and Trump have served as an expression of ordinary people’s rejection of these economic and political regimes under which they live. In Syria, Washington and its puppet allies have almost exited the scene without achieving their strategic goal of removing Assad from power. Within the American political system, the establishment, spanning from Clinton to Obama, was swept away for their economic and political failures. The mainstream media, spewing an endless stream of propaganda aimed at sustaining the political elite, completely lost their battle to appear credible, reaching unprecedented peaks of partisanship and immorality. Donald Trump has emerged with a new approach to foreign policy affairs, shaped by various political thinkers of the realist mould, such as Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer. First on the to-do list is doing away with all the recent neoconservative and neoliberal policies of foreign intervention (Responsibility to Protect - R2P) and soft-power campaigns in favor of human rights. And there will be no more UN resolutions deviously employed as cover to bomb nations back into the stone age (Libya). Trump does not believe in the central role of the UN in international affairs, reaffirming this repeatedly during his campaign. The Trump administration intends to end the policy of regime change, interference in the internal affairs of foreign governments, Arab Springs, and color revolutions. Such efforts, they argue, are ultimately ineffective anyway and are too costly in terms of political credibility. In Ukraine the Americans have allied themselves with supporters of the Nazi Stepan Bandera, and in the Middle East they finance or indirectly support al Qaeda and al Nusra Front. These tactics, infamously branded as 'leading from behind', never achieved their desired results. The Middle East is in chaos, with a Moscow-Tehran axis emerging and going from strength to strength. In Ukraine, the government in Kiev not only seems incapable of complying with the Minsk agreements but also of prosecuting a new military campaign with no guarantees from their European and American partners. There is a wild card that Trump hopes to play in the first months of his presidency. The strategy will focus on the inherited chaotic situation in the Middle East and Ukraine. Obama will be blamed for the previous chaos, it will be argued that sanctions against the Russian Federation should be removed, and Moscow will be given a free hand in the Middle East. In one fell swoop, the future president may decide not to decide directly on the Middle East or on Ukraine, avoiding any further involvement and instead finally making a decision in the national interest of his country. A sustainable strategy may finally be attained by remaining passive towards the developments in the Middle East, especially on the Syrian front, leaving it firmly in Russian hands, while emphasizing at the same time the effort against Daesh in cooperation with Moscow. Another wise choice would see Kiev falling by the wayside, trashing Ukrainian ambitions to regain the Donbass and recover Crimea. Finally, removing sanctions would allow the next president to strengthen the alliance with European partners (a diplomatic necessity that Trump must make as the new president). Over two years the EU has suffered from economic suicide in the name of a failed policy strategy imposed by Washington. The Trump presidency will seek to normalize relations between Moscow and Washington as well as with European allies more willing to actively collaborate with the Trump administration. The Middle East will accordingly see a decline in violence, increasing the chances of seeing an end to the conflict in Syria. This plan for the initial phase of the Trump presidency has been widely announced during the months leading up to his election, both by himself or by members of his staff. The implicit message is to seek dialogue and cooperation with all nations. Probably what lies behind these overtures is actually an explicit willingness to try to break the cooperation between Russia, Iran and China. The motivations for this action stem from the implications for the United States if a full military, cultural and economic alliance between Beijing, Moscow and Tehran is formed. It would almost ultimately consign the United States to irrelevance on the grand chessboard of international relations. More realistically, Trump aims to shift the focus of the United States from the Atlantic to the Pacific, where the largest US commercial interests will reside in the future; a shift of focus from the Middle East to the South and East China Seas. The geopolitical reasons behind this decision, and the guiding theories behind it, were addressed particularly in the first article of this series. In summary, Trump intends to accelerate Obama’s Asian pivot, bringing about profound changes to US foreign policy. Smoking the peace pipe with Russia will free up resources (to "build up our military" in naval terms) to be focused in the Pacific. He intends to emphasize the importance of bilateral relations between allies ("free riders" Japan and South Korea) to focus on containing China. The wildcard that Trump hopes to play in breaking the alliance is called Russia. Thanks to previous peace talks developed with Moscow, Trump hopes for a reprise of Kissinger's strategy with China in 1979, with the addition of a promise of non-interference in the Middle East against Iran and Syria by the United States. In an exchange unlikely to happen, the American administration is hoping to convince the Kremlin that no action will be taken in the Middle East against Moscow and its allies, including Iran, in exchange for help in containing the Republic of China. With this in mind, Trump’s choice of a very questionable personality to liaise between Washington and Tel Aviv, combined with the strong rhetoric of Trump against the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the equally harsh responses from Tehran to the threats of the future president, seem to satisfy the roles and rhetoric of all parties involved. No actions, only rhetoric. For Tehran and Tel Aviv it is easier to argue that to sign an agreement. The Iranian nuclear deal will, for this reason, continue to be a major point of tension, but also the guarantor of unlikely military action. The real problem for the future administration in this strategy is offering a consistent plan of non-interference in the Middle East. Putin is well aware, in any case, that Washington is not able to intervene and change the fate of the balance of power that is forming in the Middle East. Trump’s indirect offer not to take action in the Middle East is at best a bluff that will not last long. Trump ignores (or, being a good negotiator, pretends not to want to see) that very few cards in his deck can be attractive to Moscow. The alliance between Moscow, Beijing and Tehran is firm and certified by strategic exchanges in many fields, a trend promising tremendous growth. The war in Syria has shown the results of effective coordination between the three nations. The addition of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) will further strengthen security ties, without forgetting that the north-south corridor between Russia and Iran also ensures stability in an area of ??the globe where the danger of subversive terrorism is very high.. During the period of sanctions, Russia and China signed the most important and immense trade agreement in history, sealing Moscow’s turn toward the east. Such a move involves a level of strategic planning that goes well beyond the four years of a presidential term. If Trump hopes to achieve cooperation of some kind with Putin to further his grand strategy, he is deluding himself. However, he must out of necessity cooperate against terrorism in the Middle East with Russia and moderate Washington’s allies in the region who support terrorist. He will be forced to remove sanctions and reset the international relationship between Washington and Moscow, freeing the EU from a counterproductive situation in opposing the Russian Federation. He will probably then decide to ignore permanently the matter of Ukraine and Crimea, burying one of the tactics and strategies that was the cornerstone of the neoconservatives, namely an attempt to prepare the Ukrainian army to face the Russian Federation militarily, then drawing in NATO into an all-out war. Trump knows he is in an inferior negotiating position vis-a-vis Moscow and Beijing. He is well aware that effecting a rupture of relations between China, Russia and Iran is almost impossible. The only advantage, from his point of view, is having more room to negotiate with Moscow, given the abysmal levels of relations between Putin and Obama. Naturally, if Trump should really embark on such a mission of dividing the Eurasian continent, he is likely to expect very specific guarantees about the future attitude of Moscow towards Beijing. Putin will have very few problems in playing him to his advantage. Moscow has everything to gain from this situation. Trump hopes to have on his side the Russian Federation, then proceed to convince countries like Japan, the Philippines and South Korea that containing China is the only viable strategy for limiting China’s influence and future domination over Asia. These actions will provoke the opposite effects to those intended, thereby promoting further integration of Eurasia (AIIB and Silk Road 2.0), as shown by Obama’s Asian pivot. Any attempt to impose a new Asian pivot will end up in flames, as has been the case with the commercial Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. In the meantime, with the removal of sanctions, many EU countries will finally be able to resume their energy and technology integration with the Eurasian continent, especially with Russia. Japan will in all likelihood be able to sign a peace treaty with Russia without violating its obligations to Washington. In general, the removal of sanctions on Russia will accelerate many projects placed on hold by tensions between Washington and Moscow. Trump’s attitude, if he decides to have an aggressive posture towards Beijing, will force the Chinese elite to see what lies in store for it. Washington does not intend to have joint relations with Beijing. Trump has repeatedly reiterated the thoughts of Mearsheimer, a prominent contemporary geopolitical theorist, who states that in less than a decade China’s growth will likely pose a threat to the United States as a superpower. Mearsheimer argues that within a few years, thanks to the growth of nominal GDP and demographic increase, the Republic of China will be the first military power in the world to dominate Asia. Trump intends to concentrate all his efforts, in terms of foreign policy, on this factor. To succeed, he understands that he needs to have on his side several regional players (Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, India, the Philippines), especially the Russian Federation, as well as oversee a sea change that will transfer the attention in Washington from the Atlantic to the Pacific . This period of time will represent for Moscow, Beijing and Tehran a time to make definitive choices, a season in which the national policy-makers of these nations will have to understand what road to embark on. For Tehran, the cards are dealt face up, with a predetermined role as regional power. For Moscow and Beijing the issue is far more complicated. Much will depend on how Beijing intends to oppose openly any hostile action of Trump. Moscow has for many years openly questioned the world order led by Washington. Beijing understandably seems reluctant to engage in direct confrontation. In all likelihood, Trump and his realist foreign-policy attitude will lead the Chinese elite to understand that Washington considers itself to be the only one entitled to grant world order. The Chinese elites need to understand that the only sustainable path for the future is the construction, with all actors, of a multipolar world that includes Washington, New Delhi, Moscow, Tehran, London and Brussels. Realistically, it is hard to think that the new administration would alter the strategic partnership formed between China, Iran and Russia. After all, Trump would retrace the same steps of his predecessors, simply by changing the angle of approach and trying to further shuffle the cards of international relations. The decision to improve the world through cooperation and mutual respect does not exactly match the aspirations of the American deep state that seeks war, chaos and conflicts. The big difference we will see with a candidate like Trump is easy. Once all diplomatic efforts have failed against Beijing, instead of doubling down with military or terrorist efforts, the strategy will be abandoned in silence. The strong expressions against Beijing, the feared increase in military spending for the Pacific (to satisfy the industrial-military apparatus), and the rhetoric against Iran (to appease the Israel lobby), will be used to moderate the deep state’s intentions, while Trump will try to focus on economics and security (counter-terrorism) and much less on foreign policy. Series Conclusion. This series has sought to invite readers to reflect on the epochal events that are occurring. The global hegemonic project that was supposed to be realized with a Clinton presidency has been stopped. The inevitable military confrontation with Russia, Iran and China has been averted thanks to the preventive actions of these countries together with the defeat of the Democratic candidate. A huge blow has been delivered to the establishment, with its impulse toward globalism and US imperialism. The emergence of a multipolar world order has altered the way nations interact with each other in the field of international relations. Washington is no longer the only referent, and it is this that represents a pivotal transition from a unipolar world dominated by Washington. The mechanisms that regulate the great powers have varied in form and content, leading to an almost unprecedented international situation. The future multipolar world order, historically unstable, will in fact hold the promise of stability thanks to the actions of opposing nations to the American superpower. United they will stabilize the world. The key to a sustainable future world order is the synergy between the newly formed Beijing, Moscow and Tehran axis as an economic, military and cultural counterweight to the US. The union and the alliance of these three nations has created a new super-pole, able to balance effectively the often destructive actions of Washington. Rather than a multipolar world order, we are actually faced with a situation of two superpowers, one of which is based on the integration between dozens of nations on more than two continents. It is a new era that will accompany us over the coming decades. The unipolar world is over – forever!

Выбор редакции
14 января, 18:00

How China's Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank Fared Its First Year

The AIIB one-year anniversary can be said to be a successful one.

13 января, 20:25

Friday assorted links

1. Do lenders of last resort really make financial systems that much safer?  And the bullfighting economist and Federal Reserve governor. 2. Disney negotiating with Carrie Fisher’s estate for more Princess Leia. 3. Seoul opens a bookstore with no employees and no prices. 4. “Virginia man spends $1,000 to deliver 300,000 pennies to Lebanon DMV.”  […] The post Friday assorted links appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

11 января, 14:20

От конгрессменов с приветом

Как и ожидалось, абсурдные и не имеющие ничего общего со здравым смыслом обвинения России в кибератаках против США превратились для тамошних русофобов и трампофобов (сейчас это синонимы) в некий "Перл-Харбор" или 11 сентября. Именно эти сравнения привёл сенатор-демократ Бен Кардин, предлагая свой вариант ответа российскому Чемберлену в виде нового пакета санкций. Вместе с другими большими фанатами Москвы из Республиканской партии — сенаторами Джоном Маккейном, Линдси Грэмом и Марко Рубио — Кардин намеревается провести через конгресс некоторые ограничительные меры, начиная с новых персональных санкций против лиц, сотрудничающих с ФСБ и участвовавших в якобы кибератаках, и заканчивая выделением ста миллионов долларов на ведение контрпропаганды против России. Самой неприятной частью пакета является наказание за сотрудничество с Россией. Вашингтон намерен наказывать все физические и юридические лица (не только из США и РФ, но и из третьих стран), которые будут инвестировать значительные суммы в российскую нефтегазовую и ядерную сферы. Эти ограничения ставят под вопрос многие серьёзные инфраструктурные проекты Москвы — "Северный поток-2", "Турецкий поток", строительство ядерной станции Аккую в Турции — в которых нужно иностранное финансирование или иностранные технологии. Европейские и даже китайские компании вряд ли рискнут сотрудничать с Москвой, если под угрозой окажется их доступ на американский рынок. Также будут наказаны лица, участвующие в приватизации объектов в России или же занимающиеся куплей-продажей российского суверенного долга. Очевидно, что целью принятия этого пакета является не столько месть Москве за кибератаки (в то, что Россия отдала приказ о взломе серверов Демократической партии, не верит, скорее всего, даже Маккейн), сколько личный пиар отдельной группы товарищей, отыгрывающих медийную тему, а также стремление насолить Трампу. Ну и, конечно же, желание подорвать процесс российско-американского сближения, который многими американскими русофобами рассматривается как предательство американских идеалов и капитуляция перед Россией. Однако шансы на реализацию последнего мотива невелики. К счастью для России и для самих США. Во-первых, речь идёт только о законодательной инициативе: она ещё должна пройти конгресс. В Москве рассчитывают, что конгрессмены — разумные люди, и они эту инициативу похоронят. И даже не потому, что они не верят в российских хакеров. История показывает, что такого рода шантаж третьих стран, дабы они не сотрудничали с врагами США, приводит лишь к дискредитации самой Америки. Как, собственно, и вообще введение санкций под надуманным предлогом. Злоупотребление санкционной политикой в политических целях уже привело к дискредитации подконтрольных США и Западу глобальных финансовых институтов и породило запрос на параллельные институты. Чем, в частности, воспользовался Китай, создав свой Азиатский банк инфраструктурных инвестиций. Во-вторых, даже если инициатива пройдёт конгресс, она должна быть подписана Дональдом Трампом. А он её может и не подписать. Да, если бы ситуация случилась здесь и сейчас, Трамп, который находится пока в слабой позиции и нуждается в лайках со стороны конгресса для утверждения своей команды, скорее всего, не стал бы идти наперекор Капитолию. Однако через несколько месяцев он вполне может ответить "нет", особенно если к тому времени достигнет какого-либо прогресса на переговорах с Владимиром Путиным. Для преодоления президентского вето нужно 2/3 голосов каждой палаты конгресса, и особенно в случае успехов на ниве российско-американской перезагрузки этих голосов Бен Кардин и его друзья могут не набрать. В-третьих, даже если законопроект пройдёт конгресс и получит автограф Трампа, он может и не вступить в силу. По словам сенатора Кардина, в закон будет включено позволение президенту не вводить указанные санкции против России в том случае, если это будет соответствовать американским национальным интересам. Естественно, интересам в понимании самого Трампа. И в этом случае законопроект обретает нового симпатизанта в лице нового хозяина Белого дома, которому критически не хватает хоть каких-нибудь инструментов давления на Россию. Дамоклов меч над "Северным потоком" и "Турецким потоком", безусловно, поможет Трампу убедить Москву учесть интересы США на Ближнем Востоке и в Восточной Азии. Так что получается, что в стремлении насолить Трампу его противники лишь укрепляют позиции президента и его переговорные позиции.

11 января, 08:01

Кризис скорректировал мандат банков развития

Из источника финансирования политических мегапроектов банки развития переформатируются в игроков на поле рыночных кредитов

02 января, 06:30

How A United Iran, Russia, & China Are Changing The World

Submitted by Federico Pieraccini via Strategic-Culture.org, The two previous articles have focused on the various geopolitical theories, their translations into modern concepts, and practical actions that the United States has taken in recent decades to aspire to global dominance. This segment will describe how Iran, China and Russia have over the years adopted a variety of economic and military actions to repel the continual assault on their sovereignty by the West; in particular, how the American drive for global hegemony has actually accelerated the end of the 'unipolar moment' thanks to the emergence of a multipolar world. From the moment the Berlin Wall fell, the United States saw a unique opportunity to pursue the goal of being the sole global hegemon. With the end of the Soviet Union, Washington could undoubtedly aspire to planetary domination paying little heed to the threat of competition and especially of any consequences. America found herself the one and only global superpower, faced with the prospect of extending cultural and economic model around the planet, where necessary by military means. Over the past 25 years there have been numerous examples demonstrating how Washington has had little hesitation in bombing nations reluctant to kowtow to Western wishes. In other examples, an economic battering ram, based on predatory capitalism and financial speculation, has literally destroyed sovereign nations, further enriching the US and European financial elite in the process. Alliances to Resist In the course of the last two decades, the relationship between the three major powers of the Heartland, the heart of the Earth, changed radically. Iran, Russia and China have fully understood that union and cooperation are the only means for mutual reinforcement. The need to fight a common problem, represented by a growing American influence in domestic affairs, has forced Tehran, Beijing and Moscow to resolve their differences and embrace a unified strategy in the common interest of defending their sovereignty. Events such as the war in Syria, the bombing of Libya, the overthrowing of the democratic order in Ukraine, sanctions against Iran, and the direct pressure applied to Beijing in the South China Sea, have accelerated integration among nations that in the early 1990s had very little in common. Economic Integration Analyzing US economic power it is clear that supranational organizations like the World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund and the World Bank guarantee Washington’s role as the economic leader. The pillars that support the centrality of the United States in the world economy can be attributed to the monetary policy of the Fed and the function of the dollar as a global reserve currency. The Fed has unlimited ability to print money to finance further economic power of the private and public sector as well as to pay the bill due for very costly wars. The US dollar plays a central role as the global reserve currency as well as being used as currency for trade. This virtually obliges each central bank to own reserves in US currency, continuing to perpetuate the importance of Washington in the global economic system. The introduction of the yuan into the international basket of the IMF, global agreements for the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), and Beijing’s protests against its treatment by the World Trade Organization (WTO) are all alarm bells for American strategists who see the role of the American currency eroding. In Russia, the central bank decided not to accumulate dollar reserves, favoring instead foreign currency like the Indian rupee and the Chinese yuan. The rating agencies - western financial-oligarchy tools -have diminishing credibility, having become means to manipulate markets to favor specific US interests. Chinese and Russian independent rating agencies are further confirmation of Beijing and Moscow’s strategy to undermine America’s role in western economics. De-dollarization is occurring and proceeding rapidly, especially in areas of mutual business interest. In what is becoming increasingly routine, nations are dealing in commodities by negotiating in currencies other than the dollar. The benefit is twofold: a reduction in the role of the dollar in their sovereign affairs, and an increase in synergies between allied nations. Iran and India exchanged oil in rupees, and China and Russia trade in yuan. Another advantage enjoyed by the United States, intrinsically linked to the banking private sector, is the political pressure that Americans can apply through financial and banking institutions. The most striking example is seen in the exclusion of Iran from the SWIFT international system of payments, as well as the extension of sanctions, including the freezing of Tehran's assets (about 150 billion US dollars) in foreign bank deposits. While the US is trying to crack down on independent economic initiatives, nations like Iran, Russia and China are increasing their synergies. During the period of sanctions against Iran, the Russian Federation has traded with the Islamic Republic in primary commodities. China has supported Iran with the export of oil purchased in yuan. More generally, Moscow has proposed the creation of an alternative banking system to the SWIFT system. Private Banks, central banks, ratings agencies and supranational organizations depend in large part on the role played by the dollar and the Fed. The first goal of Iran, Russia and China is of course to make these international bodies less influential. Economic multipolarity is the first as well as the most incisive way to expand the free choice before each nation to pursue its own interests, thereby retaining its national sovereignty. This fictitious and corrupt financial system led to the financial crisis of 2008. Tools to accumulate wealth by the elite, artificially maintaining a zombie system (turbo capitalism) have served to cause havoc in the private and public sectors, such as with the collapse of Lehman Brothers or the crisis in the Asian markets in the late 1990s. The need for Russia, China and Iran to find an alternative economic system is also necessary to secure vital aspects of the domestic economy. The stock-market crash in China, the depreciation of the ruble in Russia, and the illegal sanctions imposed on Iran have played a profound role in concentrating the minds of Moscow, Tehran and Beijing. Ignoring the problem borne of the centrality of the dollar would have only increased the influence and role of Washington. Finding points of convergence instead of being divided was an absolute must and not an option. A perfect example, explaining the failed American economic approach, can be seen in recent years with the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), two commercial agreements that were supposed to seal the economic trade supremacy of the US. The growing economic alternatives proposed by the union of intent between Russia, China and Iran has enabled smaller nations to reject the US proposals to seek better trade deals elsewhere. In this sense, the Free Trade Area of ??the Asia Pacific (FTAAP) proposed by Beijing is increasingly appreciated in Asia as an alternative to the TPP. In the same way, the Eurasian Union (EAEU) and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) have always been key components for Moscow. The function these institutions play was noticeably accelerated following the coup in Ukraine and the resulting need for Russia to turn east in search of new business partners. Finally, Iran, chosen by Beijing as the crossroad of land and sea transit, is a prime example of integration between powers geographically distant but with great intentions to integrate vital structures of commerce. The Chinese model of development, called Silk Road 2.0, poses a serious threat to American global hegemonic processes. The goal for Beijing is to reach full integration between the countries of the Heartland and Rimland, utilizing the concept of sea power and land power. With an investment of 1,000 billion US dollars over ten years, China itself becomes a link between the west, represented by Europe; the east, represented by China itself; the north, with the Eurasian economic space; the south, with India; Southeast Asia; the Persian Gulf and Middle East. The hope is that economic cooperation will lead to the resolution of discrepancies and strategic differences between countries thanks to trade agreements that are beneficiary to all sides. The role of Washington continues to be that of destruction rather than construction. Instead of playing the role of a global superpower that is interested in business and trade with other nations, the United States continues to consider any foreign decision in matters of integration, finance, economy and development to lie within its exclusive domain. The primary purpose of the United States is simply to exploit every economic and cultural instrument available to prevent cohesion and coexistence between nations. The military component is usually the trump card, historically used to impose this vision on the rest of the world. In recent years, thanks to de-dollarization and military integration, nations like Iran, Russia and China are less subject to Washington's unilateral decisions. Military deterrence Accompanying the important economic integration is strong military-strategic cooperation, which is much less publicized. Events such as the Middle East wars, the coup in Ukraine, and the pressure exerted in the South China Sea have forced Tehran, Moscow and Beijing to conclude that the United States represents an existential threat. In each of the above scenarios, China, Russia and Iran have had to make decisions by weighing the pros and cons of an opposition to the American model. The Ukraine coup d’état brought NATO to the borders of the Russian Federation, representing an existential threat to the Russia, threatening as it does its nuclear deterrent. In the Middle East, the destruction of Iraq, Libya and Syria has obliged Tehran to react against the alliance formed between Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United States. In China, the constant pressure on South China Sea poses a serious problem in case of a trade blockade during a conflict. In all these scenarios, American imperialism has created existential threats. It is for this reason natural that cooperation and technological development, even in the military area, have received a major boost in recent years. In the event of an American attack on Russia, China and Iran, it is important to focus on what weapon systems would be used and how the attacked nations could respond. Maritime Strategy and Deterrence Certainly, US naval force place a serious question mark over the defense capabilities of nations like Russia, China and Iran, which strongly depend on transit via sea routes. Let us take, for example, Russia and the Arctic transit route, of great interest not only for defense purposes but also being a quick passage for transit goods. The Black Sea for these reasons has received special attention from the United States due to its strategic location. In any case, the responses have been proportional to the threat. Iran has significantly developed maritime capabilities in the Persian Gulf, often closely marking ships of the US Navy located in the area for the purposes of ??deterrence. China's strategy has been even more refined, with the use of dozens, if not hundreds, of fishing boats and ships of the Coast Guard to ensure safety and strengthen the naval presence in the South and East China Sea. This is all without forgetting the maritime strategy outlined by the PLA Navy to become a regional naval power over the next few years. Similar strategic decisions have been taken by the navy of the Russian Federation. In addition to having taken over ship production as in Soviet times, it has opted for the development of ships that cost less but nevertheless boast equivalent weapons systems to the Americans carrier groups. Iran, China and Russia make efficiency and cost containment a tactic to balance the growing aggressiveness of the Americans and the attendant cost of such a military strategy. The fundamental difference between the naval approach of these countries in contrast to that of the US is paramount. Washington needs to use its naval power for offensive purposes, whereas Tehran, Moscow and Beijing need naval power exclusively for defensive purposes. In this sense, among the greatest weapons these three recalcitrant countries possess are anti-ship, anti-aircraft and anti-ballistic systems. To put things simply, it is enough to note that Russian weapons systems such as the S-300 and S-400 air-defense systems (the S-500 will be operational in 2017) are now being adopted by China and Iran with variations developed locally. Increasingly we are witnessing an open transfer of technology to continue the work of denying (A2/AD) physical and cyberspace freedom to the United States. Stealth aircraft, carrier strike groups, ICBMs and cruise missiles are experiencing a difficult time in such an environment, finding themselves opposed by the formidable defense systems the Russians, Iranians and Chinese are presenting. The cost of an anti-ship missile fired from the Chinese coast is considerably lower than the tens of billions of dollars needed to build an aircraft carrier. This paradigm of cost and efficiency is what has shaped the military spending of China, Russia and Iran. Going toe to toe with the United States without being forced to close a huge military gap is the only viable way to achieve immediate tangible benefits of deterrence and thereby block American expansionist ambitions. A clear example of where the Americans have encountered military opposition at an advanced level has been in Syria. The systems deployed by Iran and Russia to protect the Syrian government presented the Americans with the prospect of facing heavy losses in the event of an attack on Damascus. The same also holds for the anti-Iranian rhetoric of certain American politicians and Israeli leaders. The only reason why Syria and Iran remain sovereign nations is because of the military cost that an invasion or bombing would have brought to their invaders. This is the essence of deterrence. Of course, this argument only takes into partial account the nuclear aspect that this author has extensively discussed in a previous article. The Union of the nations of the Heartland and Rimland will make the United States irrelevant The future for the most important area of ??the planet is already sealed. The overall integration of Beijing, Moscow and Tehran provides the necessary antibodies to foreign aggression in military and economic form. De-dollarization, coupled with an infrastructure roadmap such as the Chinese Silk Road 2.0 and the maritime trade route, offer important opportunities for developing nations that occupy the geographical space between Portugal and China. Dozens of nations have all it takes to integrate for mutually beneficial gains without having to worry too much about American threats. The economic alternative offered from Beijing provides a fairly wide safety net for resisting American assaults in the same way that the military umbrella offered by these three military powers, such as with the the SCO for example, serves to guarantee the necessary independence and strategic autonomy. More and more nations are clearly rejecting American interference, favoring instead a dialogue with Beijing, Moscow and Tehran. Duterte in the Philippines is just the latest example of this trend. The multipolar future has gradually reduced the role of the United States in the world, primarily in reaction to her aggression seeking to achieve global domination. The constant quest for planetary hegemony has pushed nations who were initially western partners to reassess their role in the international order, passing slowly but progressively into the opposite camp to that of Washington. The consequences of this process have sealed the destiny of the United States, not only as a response to her quest for supremacy but also because of her efforts to maintain her role as the sole global superpower. As noted in previous articles, during the Cold War the aim for Washington was to prevent the formation of a union between the nations of the Heartland, who could then exclude the US from the most important area of ??the globe. With the fall of the Iron Curtain, sights were set on an improbable quest to conquer the Heartland nations with the intent of dominating the whole world. The consequences of this miscalculation have led the United States to being relegated to the role of mere observer, watching the unions and integrations occurring that will revolutionize the Eurasian zone and the planet over the next 50 years. The desperate search to extend Washington's unipolar moment has paradoxically accelerated the rise of a multipolar world. In the next and final article, I will throw a light on what is likely to be a change in the American approach to foreign policy. Keeping in mind the first two articles that examined the approach by land theorized by MacKinder as opposed to the Maritime Mahan, we will try and outline how Trump intends to adopt a containment approach to the Rimland, limiting the damage to the US caused by a complete integration between nations such as Russia, China, Iran and India.

31 декабря 2016, 09:17

2016 год в зеркале журнала «Международная жизнь»

2016 год останется в памяти тех, кто следил за ходом мировых событий, как период чрезвычайно насыщенный, возможно, переломный. Как период мировой истории, когда время буквально сжалось – те процессы, что прежде назревали десятилетиями и материализовывались годами, теперь на наших глазах зарождаются, расцветают и приносят плоды буквально за месяцы! Заметим так же, как интересно читать сегодня, например, прогнозы от начала года о результатах выборов президента США в ноябре. Или рассматривать оценки политики той или иной страны, имея на руках результаты, с которыми она подошла к завершению 2016 года, проводя самые разные маневры в своей политике.

28 декабря 2016, 10:22

Чего не хватает Китаю для трансформации экономики?

Удастся ли мировой экономике избежать затяжной стагнации во многом зависит от того, сможет ли Китай переориентировать экономику на внутренний спрос. Как пишет в своей статье на Project Syndicate лауреат Нобелевской премии Майкл Спенс, для трансформации Китаю необходимо ликвидировать дисбалансы в финансовой системе.

28 декабря 2016, 00:53

Чего не хватает Китаю для трансформации экономики?

Удастся ли мировой экономике избежать затяжной стагнации, во многом зависит от того, сможет ли Китай переориентировать экономику на внутренний спрос.

28 декабря 2016, 00:53

Чего не хватает Китаю для трансформации экономики?

Удастся ли мировой экономике избежать затяжной стагнации во многом зависит от того, сможет ли Китай переориентировать экономику на внутренний спрос.

26 декабря 2016, 13:12

АБИИ собрался финансировать строительство Трансанатолийского газопровода (gringo)

Азиатский  банк инфраструктурных инвестиций (AIIB) одобрил выделение 600 млн. долларов США  для строительства  Трансанатолийского газопровода, соединяющего Азербайджан, Турцию и Южную Европу. Газопровод пройдет от газоконденсатного шельфового месторождения Шах-Дениз в Азербайджане, через территорию Грузии и Турции, до стран Южной Европы.14 комментариев

23 декабря 2016, 05:48

AIIB loan for energy project in Azerbaijan

The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank has approved a loan of US$600 million to finance an energy project in Azerbaijan.

22 декабря 2016, 19:01

AIIB loan for energy project in Azerbaijan

The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank has approved a loan of US$600 million to finance an energy project in Azerbaijan.

Выбор редакции
22 декабря 2016, 08:07

АБИИ решил предоставить Азербайджану кредит в размере 600 млн долл США

Азиатский банк инфраструктурных инвестиций /АБИИ/ предоставит Азербайджану кредит в размере 600 млн долл США на финансирование энергетического проекта. Решение об этом принял Совет директоров АБИИ в среду, 21 декабря.

16 июня 2016, 13:25

ЕАЭС и Шелковый путь: новый мировой порядок

В рамках ПМЭФ состоится презентация аналитического доклада "Экономический пояс евразийской интеграции" о путях реализации проекта сопряжения интеграции Евразийского экономического союза и "Экономического пояса Шелкового пути".

17 марта 2016, 08:29

Глобальные тенденции 2015 года и прогноз на 2016.

Исследовательский центр «Катехон» представляет Вашему вниманию геополитический анализ основных тенденций в мировой политике за 2015 год и прогноз на 2016 год. Доклад подготовлен группой экспертов «Катехона» на основании, как общедоступных данных, так и закрытой информации, находящейся в нашем распоряжении. Все выводы имеют вероятностный и прогностический характер.

12 ноября 2014, 10:03

Зачем Китай создает свой "Всемирный банк" в Азии

  В мире существует большое количество международных банков развития, но Китай решил добавить еще один. Азиатский банк инфраструктурных инвестиций (AIIB) направлен на поддержку проектов в 21 стране регионе. Соглашение о создании AIIB было подписано еще 24 октября. Соглашение подписали, в том числе, Индия, Сингапур, Вьетнам, Филиппины, Монголия, Бангладеш, Бруней, Камбоджа, Казахстан, Кувейт, Лаос, Малайзия, Мьянма, Непал, Оман, Пакистан, Катар, Шри-Ланка, Таиланд и Узбекистан. Банк будет выделять деньги на строительство дорог, развитие телекоммуникационной инфраструктуры и другие инфраструктурные реформы в бедных регионах Азии. Китай возглавил банк и надеется официально запустить его к концу следующего года. Больший объем средств для проектов – однозначный плюс, но создание AIIB усиливает конкуренцию, так как у Азии уже есть крупный кредитор – Азиатский банк развития. Почему Китай создает новый банк развития для Азии? Динамика ВВП Азии (прогноз)Официальная позиция Китая подразумевает, что в Азии есть огромный пробел с финансирование инфраструктуры. Недостаток финансирования АБР в 2010-2020 гг. составил примерно $8 трлн, и заполнить этот пробел не получится. У АБР капитал составляет чуть более $160 млрд, у Всемирного банка – $223 млрд. При этом AIIB пока начнет с капитала в $50 млрд и этого явно будет недостаточно, но все средства пойдут впрок. Более того, средства АБР и Всемирного банка направляются на любые проекты, начиная от окружающей среды и заканчивая гендерным равенством, тогда как новый институт сосредоточиться исключительно на инфраструктуре. И самое интересное, что чиновники АБР и ВБ официально приветствуют создание банка, хотя и осторожно, и говорят о возможностях для сотрудничества. Однако настоящая дипломатическая битва только впереди, и она не так уж очевидна. США пытались убедить своих союзников не присоединяться к AIIB, в то время как Джин Ликун, возглавивший банк, активно посещал страны, убеждая их войти в капитал банка. В результате, на церемонии основания банка отсутствовали представители Австралии, Индонезии и Южной Кореи. При этом не очень ясно, как AIIB будет управляться. Критики предупреждают, что исключительно под руководством Китая банк не сможет достичь стандартов, необходимых для международного кредита. Тем не менее, Китай настаивает на том, что AIIB будет использовать лучшие практики таких институтов, как Всемирный банк. Учитывая это, банк будет находится под тщательным контролем властей страны. Но настоящая и неопределенная напряженности связана с сильнейшим геополитическим сдвигом. Китай будет использовать новый банк для расширения влияния в Азии за счет Америки и Японии. Решение Китая по финансированию инвестиционного банка отражает его негативную позицию относительно медленных темпов глобальной реформы экономического управления. Точно такая же мотивация лежит в основе нового банка развития, создаваемого странами БРИКС. Пул резервных валютСтраны БРИКС, стремясь к большей независимости, создали банк и пул резервных валют. Уставный капитал банка развития БРИКС составит $100 млрд и будет предназначен для поддержки экономик стран группы. Половину обеспечат страны-участницы, половину - будущие партнеры. Такие найдутся: желание присоединиться к блоку уже есть у Аргентины, не исключается в будущем присоединение других стран. По мнению ряда известных западных экономистов, создание банка БРИКС является явным сигналом об утрате доверия со стороны развивающихся стран к прозападной финансовой системе во главе с США. Хотя Китай является крупнейшей экономикой в Азии, АБР наиболее активно действует в Японии. Дело в том, что у Японии в банке вдвое большое голосов, чем у Китая, и главой банка всегда становится японец. Очевидно, что китайские власти недовольны позицией Запада, в частности США, которые игнорируют интересы развивающихся стран, несмотря на растущую экономическую мощь. Реформа МВФ может откладываться на долгие года, если США не одобрят ее, но Китая, по понятным причинам, не хочет ждать, поэтому взял все в свои руки.  Необходимость реформы МВФ Квоты МВФ: изменение по реформе 2010 г.Официально Международный валютный фонд был создан 27 декабря 1945 г. Фонд объединяет 188 государств, каждое из которых имеет право голоса при принятии решений о реформировании или выделении помощи. Количество голосов определяется по системе квот. Первое распределение квот произошло при создании фонда, а сейчас должно быть 14-е перераспределение. И это перераспределение должно стать переходным периодом, на повестке дня уже стоит 15-е их изменение. Объем средств МВФ определяется специальными правами заимствования (pecial Drawing Rights, SDR). Сейчас объем SDR составляет 238,4 млрд евро, что эквивалентно $369,52 млрд. Квоты распределены таким образом, что страны G7 имеют возможность принять любое решение в рамках МВФ или заблокировать то, которое их не устраивает. Необходимость пересмотра квот обусловлена как важностью увеличения доли развивающихся стран, так и несовершенством действующей формулой расчета квот. В настоящий момент размер квот слишком сильно зависит от вовлеченности страны в глобальную мировую торговлю, а реальные экономические показатели учитываются слабо. И последний мировой финансовый кризис наглядно показал слабости такой системы, так как для получения помощи от МВФ страны развивают внешнюю торговлю в ущерб внутреннему развитию. Размер финансирования напрямую зависит от объема квот. В результате экономическое расслоение в глобальном масштабе проявляется все сильнее, увеличивается риск внутренних конфликтов, появления проблемных стран и другие проблемы.