Suchergebnisse

The article addresses a set of problems pertaining to nuclear deterrence, strategic stability, and missile defense. The author states that as a derivative of nuclear deterrence strategic stability can only be applied to military-strategic relations between Russia and the United States. This concept "does not work" in all other cases, including the multilateral format of relations. Nuclear deterrence is more universal and impacts, among other things, the decision-making process in relatively strong and weak nuclear states that oppose each other. The effectiveness of nuclear deterrence is not determined solely by the balance of opposing forces. No less important is the assessment by a potential aggressor of all the negative consequences of its decision to strike first, which creates the "self-deterrence" effect that outweighs even the aggressor's absolute confidence in the complete military success of its nuclear attack. The author also insists that missile defense is undeservedly considered a "destabilizing" weapons system, because the baseline scenario involving a massive exchange of nuclear strikes, which is used for estimating the effectiveness of nuclear deterrence and the level of strategic stability, is completely far-fetched.

The article presents a realist view of soft power. In this interpretation, soft power is a tool that provides advantages in international competition. As a concept and practice, soft power is associated with the idea of globalization and hegemonism, it serves primarily the interests of the hegemon but ultimately creates common benefits for a significant part of the international community. However, today we are witnessing the crisis of American hegemony and weariness of the West's soft power. These changes encourage the search for new ways to build a fairer world order. The author argues that to achieve this goal, Russia's soft power should go beyond efforts to improve its international image and protect its sovereignty and traditional values. This vision of soft power does not elucidate what the future world should be like and what role Russia should play in it.

Washington's strategic course in Central Asia is primarily aimed at weakening China in the region, being an integral part of the anti-Chinese trend of Donald Trump's policy. At the same time, it pursues the goal of weakening the role of Russia, which is a constant of the US policy. Relations with the regional countries are actualized by the "Afghanistan factor" in connection with the impending withdrawal of the American contingent from the IRA. Uzbekistan is considered by Washington as an outpost of its policy in Central Asia, primarily in the Afghan direction. In Kazakhstan, the United States concentrat on promoting anti-Chinese sentiments. Despite the fact that relations with three other countries in the region remain on the periphery of Washington's policy, their development is envisaged by the framework of the C5 + 1 format.