“We are entering a tripolar world,” said a key US general, Mark Milley, referring to the US, Russia and China
In Moscow, on the contrary, they adhere to the principles of a multipolar world, as President Putin has also repeatedly stated. Why did the Pentagon decide to reduce the number of ‘poles of the world’ and how beneficial is this concept to Russia itself?
The world is entering an era of greater strategic instability with three centres of power emerging in the system of international relations – the United States, Russia and China, General Mark Milley, head of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) said at the Aspen Security Forum.
“The United States, Russia and China are all great powers. In my view, we are entering a tripolar world that will potentially be more volatile strategically than we have seen in the last 40, 50, 60 or 70 years. So there needs to be a dialogue between us”, – the general said.
It should be noted that Milli occupies one of the key positions in the U.S. military hierarchy, being both military adviser to the president, the National Security Council and the Secretary of Defense. Therefore, he has more than enough grounds and authority to make such statements.
At the same time Moscow, as we know, sees the world not as a tripolar one, but as a multipolar one. Its basis is non-interference in the internal affairs of other states and a working relationship with the rising regional powers. This, for example, was reiterated in September by Russian President Vladimir Putin during his speech at the XIII BRICS summit. He assessed the current global environment as “extremely turbulent”.
However, the term Milli used to describe the world is occasionally heard in Russia and the West, but rarely used by senior military and political figures. However, “Milley is wishful thinking”, – says Andrey Kortunov, director general of the Russian International Affairs Council.
“In a tripolar world, the parties should be at an equal distance from each other. Now we see rather a Russian-Chinese axis, which is opposed by the US and its allies. So an isosceles triangle does not work here. The current world picture is more like an emerging bipolar construct”, – he explained.
Americanist Dmitri Drobnitsky has a different view. According to him, the tripolar world “is an objective reality; however, one cannot say that Washington seriously intends to agree on anything with Moscow and Beijing”.
“The concept of a tripolar world has been raised several times by Donald Trump. In particular, the topic came up in his speech in Helsinki after talks with Putin. The American leader advocated involving Chinese President Xi Jinping in the dialogue. However, this discourse then drifted away”, – the expert recalled.
Therefore, the reason for Milley’s statement was rather an attempt to increase his administrative weight and gather a certain group of influence around him amid the confusion in the White House.
“Milley seemed to think that the mention of his name in Bob Woodward’s book, when the general ‘took the red button away from Trump’ and never gave it to Biden, made him a big man. But this is not a figure around whom a strong team can rally”, – the political scientist clarified.
“It is also possible that General Milly was talking about tripolarity in terms of military strategy,” Fyodor Lukyanov, editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Affairs, suggests in turn.
“Each of the three countries – Russia, the US and China – indeed has a military power that is qualitatively different from all the other countries outside the troika. And Milley’s current speech means that Washington has confirmed the importance of military-to-military contacts with Moscow in order to avoid unnecessary “surprises”. As a matter of fact, the general is doing just that – he is working productively with Valery Gerasimov, the chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, discussing all important issues directly,” the expert pointed out.
According to him, recognition of Russia’s military power will determine the US military planning in the foreseeable future.
“There are pros and cons here. On the one hand, it is a guarantee that the US will not create provocations against Russia. On the other hand, the US will use all the mechanisms of deterrence against us and will escalate the arms race. But Moscow should be ready for that. If you call yourself a rider, get into the body,” – added the analyst.
If Milli in his statement had in mind only the politico-military aspect and the balance of arms in the world, mainly nuclear, it means that the U.S. will strengthen the concept of dual deterrence, Kortunov agrees.
“On the one hand, Washington will contain Russia with the help of NATO and countries on Europe’s eastern flank. On the other hand, to contain China with the help of influence in the Asia-Pacific region, involving Taiwan, the military alliance AUKUS, the Five Eyes intelligence alliance and so on,” the political scientist explained.
In his opinion, Russia can theoretically benefit from a multipolar world in which it mediates between the US and China by resolving crisis situations. Also, Moscow’s relations with Beijing and Washington should be stronger than their relations with each other. “On the other hand,” Drobnitsky adds, “it is beneficial for Russia to have a world in which our country exists self-sufficiently, controlling its strategic perimeter and market of 400-500 million people. The number of poles is not that important for us”.
The analyst reminded that in 2012 Jan Bremmer’s book “Every nation for itself” was published where it is clearly described that in the nearest future the world will organize macro clusters around several centres of gravity.
“There may be more than three of these centres of gravity, because there is scope for the formation of both four and five ‘assembly points’. In this scheme, macro-region centres and member countries will survive. This requires several conditions: a sufficiently large and tightly controlled market, resources and a good strategic perimeter,” the political scientist explained.
Drobnitsky observed that the Americans are engaged in forming such a cluster around themselves and urged Moscow to act similarly.
“Russia continues the ‘intellectual game’, stressing that we recognise the sovereignty of the countries around us. In the current circumstances, we should act more harshly, because events are unfolding quite quickly, regardless of how much power is seen in our world,” the expert concluded.
Rafael Fakhrutdinov, Vzglyad