Determining the Rules of the Game

Political scientist Gilbert Doktorow on the developing international cooperation among Russia, China, and the United States.

One of the most important questions which foreign policy experts are now discussing is: What will be the new world order following the loss of the American hegemony that dominated the global order after the fall of the Soviet Union?

The Washington Times published an article in which the authors outlined the need for the three great powers to divide the spheres of influence based on economic and military realities. Such an agreement among the United States, Russia, and China would be similar to the Yalta agreement signed in February 1945.

Given that Henry Kissinger is among Trump’s top advisers, he is very familiar with the concept of realpolitik. Yalta-2 is not a figment of the utopian imagination, but it is actually quite possible although by no means an easy way to move forward.

Therefore, the lessons of the Cold War period and the period after the Soviet Union fell in 1991 need to be learned. First of all, you need to determine the primary rules of the game among the “big three” countries and try to resolve the dispute: to not engage in regional conflicts, to not organize proxy wars, and to work together like an honest broker in any disputes involving a third country. These kinds of actions early on will suppress civil wars and the local armed conflicts.

What can be viewed as the main principle of a Yalta-2 treaty?

Mainly, the creation of specific security buffer zones around Russia and China, which currently do not exist. In America, however, the Monroe Doctrine provides security to the United States in the Western Hemisphere.

The contours of the buffer zone around China are obvious and limited to the main territory of the South China Sea. From the Chinese perspective, they are purely defensive in nature, in place to protect maritime trade routes, especially for the imports of energy and natural resources regardless of the relationships with other countries. Moreover, Washington should revisit its political containment of China; that is, it should cancel the construction of anti-missile shields on the peripheries of its borders and denounce anti-Chinese agreements with Vietnam and Taiwan.

Moscow, Washington and Beijing should consider a separate agreement to guarantee the security of South Korea and Japan in light of threats from North Korea. The creation of a buffer zone around Russia would mean the withdrawal of NATO troops from the Baltic and Eastern European states, and also guarantee non-aligned, neutral status for Ukraine and Georgia.

One of the results of Yalta-2 should also be a significant reduction of the number of United States military bases around the world. This would be beneficial not only for global stability, but also for the American treasury. It would free up funds for social spending and infrastructure improvement, including modernizing domestic military bases.

Russia has the largest territory containing rich resources and huge military might, comparable to the United States. China exceeds the rest of the world in terms of population, its economy is almost comparable to the American economy, and its military sector is rapidly developing. If the goal of globalists was to build up these two giants against America, then they have largely succeeded.

Trump’s solid hand steering the American ship in conjunction with his business skills will enable him to confidently negotiate with Putin and Xi Jinping in the best interests of his country. He has also repeatedly stated that he is willing to consider the interests of partners. Russia and China might become important partners with the United States, despite the long rivalry. Therefore, the triple summit, or Yalta-2, should be held as soon as possible.

Trump has a real opportunity to achieve global stability, which his predecessors violated. Their foreign policy advisers, who were staunch globalists, considered themselves to be the exceptional and irreplaceable arbiters of the fate of humanity. Understandably, they will fiercely oppose these stated ideas, which run entirely counter to their beliefs.

Trump, in this case, is David against the establishment, Goliath. According to the Old Testament, David nevertheless conquered Goliath. How this story ends, we will find out in the near future.

The author is the European coordinator of the American Committee for East-West Accord, and a senior research fellow at the American University in Moscow.