... driver of globalization, remains at the very lowest end in almost all of its dimensions. This applies to world trade activity, with the United States lagging behind China. Although the aggregate West as a whole currently surpasses the aggregate non-West in its involvement in globalization processes, the question of who will become the main driver of these processes in the future remains open.
Interim Results
Andrey Kortunov:
Who Will Build the New World Order?
What does all this mean for our perception of globalization? Perhaps none of the above sections is sufficient to conclude that the process reached its peak at the beginning of the century and is now in decline. Likewise, Trump's Administration ...
... precisely as an antagonistic one, to be responded to not merely by economic means but also by military means, namely the biggest build-up of an armada in recent history through the Indo-Pacific strategy.
Ivan Timofeev:
A New Anarchy? Scenarios for World Order Dynamics
The irony is a dual one, because it was China that first cautioned the USSR about the idealistic and utopian nature of the project of “peaceful economic competition” with the West, but later pursued it with greater zeal and success than the USSR ever did or could. In the 1960s and 1970s, China had established a methodology of identifying the contradictions in the world at any given period and went on to hierarchize those contradictions....
... Russian intelligence or military.”
Despite the fact that IT specialists have already
disproved
the allegations of FaceApp-related risks, Schumer’s concerns indicate that the U.S. believes the Kremlin and Russian hackers to be one of the key threats. Western politicians’ fears are to a certain extent based on the fact that, after the takeover of Crimea, Russia is viewed as a country that undermines the liberal world order and attempts to promote its own alternative.
It’s easy to understand this thinking if we recall European leaders’ reaction to a statement made by the Russian president in a June 2019 interview with The Financial Times, when he said that ...
... co-managing a world order that was unstable because of the emergence of or transition to multipolarity. The evidence was in 1991 itself, when the last-ditch Franco-Russian formula to avoid or delay a war in the Gulf was brushed aside or ignored. The world order was no longer seen to be in a crisis of transition to multipolarity, because the unipolar moment had arrived. While western liberals thought that history had ended, the target states of the West, namely the Eurasian core states, thought that Imperialism had ended. This, I might add, was not a mistake that was quite so prevalent in the global South.
The West sought ...
... tell-tale evolution of one of the most notable and consistent proponents of the political philosophy of liberalism.
Ivan Timofeev:
World Order Or World Anarchy? A Look at the Modern System of International Relations
For instance, while Fukuyama previously viewed ... ... internal development factors of “traditionalist” societies. While previously the outcome of the global confrontation between western democracy and eastern authoritarianism appeared obvious to him, today, given the growing rivalry between the United States ...
... centuries ago, Japanese samurais understood the crisis of the Christian world order not very much as the crisis of Christianity, but more accurately as the crisis of occidental Christian elites. Today, Japanese leaders understand the crisis of the liberal world order not very much as the crisis of liberalism, but more accurately as the crisis of Western liberal elites. The problem may not be liberalism
per sei
, but instead the
quasi-religious zeal
of contemporary Western liberals who want to paint everything in the color of liberalism. A similar line of reasoning is put forth by Tatsuo Inoue,...
... the EU has reserved the possibility of working with Russia, whereas, for example, NATO has virtually ruled this option out. The fact that both these entities are closely related does not, of course, mean that we should pursue a policy based on the lowest common denominator. Bilateral relations with individual countries also hold great potential.
Second, rapid changes in the world order make it extremely difficult to isolate Russia globally. This circumstance must be put to good use, and much is being done already. However, here, too, there are two extremes. First, we view Asia as a partner of secondary importance – an ...
RD Interview
On the sidelines of a recent Moscow think tank debate, “
Hypocrisy vs. Diplomacy: How Insincerity Undermined the World Order After the Cold War
,”
Russia Direct
sat down with Andrei Kortunov, general director of the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC), to figure out how Russia and the West can get past accusing each other of engaging in double standards when it come to the implementation of foreign policy.
Russian pundits and politicians believe that their Western counterparts have always been hypocritical toward Russia. Given the ...
... «Hypocrisy vs Democracy: Insincerity Destroying the Global Order after the Cold War». About forty experts, journalists and diplomats from Russia, the USA, Bulgaria, Greece, the UK, and Turkey took part in the conference.
The participants discussed the Western and Russian approach to the history of NATO expansion, the promotion of democracy as a geopolitical tool, «Color Revolutions» and «Arab Spring», Ukrainian crisis narrative clash, diplomacy and public policy interaction,...
... the more relevant.
Speaking at the Valdai Discussion Club, President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin elaborated on his vision of settling the Syrian crisis. And this vision appears to reflect Russia’s overall approach to creating a new world order. It has to be said that against the backdrop of the numerous declarative, ambiguous and at times contradictory statements that our Western partners have made with regard to Syria, Vladimir Putin’s words were to-the-point, logical and consistent. There is no reticence in Russia’s position, no omissions or gaps; you can argue with it, not agree with it, add to it or even ...
