What did American strategists think about?

It is disappointing to realize that the only common field of interest for Russia and the United States that the Biden-Blinken-Sullivan-Austin administration will leave behind will be to prevent the threat of a nuclear collision. Americans, as they themselves say, are not disposed to a conflict of this kind. But their brazen confrontational policies suggest otherwise.

This forced Moscow to suspend participation in the DNCT, to withdraw the ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). This week, the strategic deterrence forces were trained by the forces and means of ground, sea and aviation components, designed "to contain aggression against Russia and its allies, as well as to defeat the aggressor in the war with the use of various types of weapons, including nuclear." Details in the material The Moscow Post.

The era is going away, what will happen next?

By the time of the training launches of Russian missiles, Jake Sullivan, the US president's national security adviser, had erupted in revelations on the pages of Foreign Affairs. He called the article "Sources of American Power: Foreign Policy for a Changed World."

There a lot is hushed up, something is turned over, but this text is interesting because it does not have the usual aggressiveness. In particular, in relation to Russia. No, "hits" on Vladimir Putin, somewhere the idea of ​ ​ changing regimes has disappeared.

Remember that Sullivan (along with Secretary of State Blinken) began his activities as an adviser to the president with negotiations with Chinese partners in Alaska. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang I. came there. So, Wang Yi is soon waiting in Washington and such an impression that Sullivan, through Foreign Affairs, told Beijing: "Look, I understand, everything is more complicated, I will not be rude to you anymore!"

He writes that "US foreign policy was developed in an era that is quickly becoming a thing of the past," added that "strategic rivalry has intensified and now affects almost all aspects of international politics," which complicates the economy, poses new problems such as the climate. In general, everything has changed, everything is not the same as before, when America sat at the head of the table.

What countries will define the future?

This question is asked by the author, probably, assuming that except American, in this list there will be also other lines. Sullivan recognizes that "though the USA remained the outstanding world power, some of the [American] most important muscles atrophied". Why? The answer is simple: The USA "underestimated importance of investments into dynamic development of economy at home". As a result America "conceded leadership in the major manufacturing sectors, could not carry out necessary investments into infrastructure. And the middle class got hit".

"And what defines national power, besides demography, geography and natural resources?", - Sullivan asks a question and whether the USA to the main call which they face – "the competition during an interdependence era" will be able to adapt?

The recipe of the author - "the state investments into innovations and the industry". The law on investments into infrastructure and job creation, the Law on chips and science and the Law on decrease of the inflation rate are adopted. The slogan of "Biden's era" - semiconductors and eco-friendly energy, and "the state investments are an important component of foreign policy", - Sullivan recognizes.

Conclusion which he draws: "The future of the USA will be defined by ability to keep advantages in the geopolitical competition and also ability to rally the world for the solution of transnational problems". The dependence on China became very high and there is a task in the vital sectors to adjust supply chains with partners and allies.

Will be farther as yesterday

On it "the Perestroika fuse" of Sullivan comes to an end. He remembers about "the American unions - a source of the American force, but not as a burden", says that Beijing and Moscow reckon with it. He reports that "the essence of foreign policy of the USA is in laying the new foundation for the American power to protect the interests and values".

Statement is continued in style of the report on the done work with "a subject of the unions with other democracies" in the center. The USA is stronger when their partners are strong too, - the author claims, can be remembering the blown-up "Northern streams" and Germany which, according to him, "disaccustoms itself to the Russian energy carriers".

The unions of the USA in Asia – a subject of special attention. This tripartite cooperation with Japan and South Korea and also the bilateral unions with them lifted "on new height". It also the AUKUS block and also the quadrilateral Indo-Pacific partnership including the USA, Japan, Australia and India.

The main thing that allies do not stint, make "investments into defense capability", lift a share of military expenses in GDP, facilitating life of the USA. And still, allies are determined "to maintain the peace and stability on that side of the Taiwan Strait", - Sullivan added, preparing for dialogue with I. Wang.

About the countries of the Global South Sullivan told that they "complain not that America there is too much, and that it too little". It seems that he believes that the USA "kept the old leadership in the field of global development" which, by the way, Washington began to knife "values" on "democracy" and "autocracy", having made it the center of foreign policy.

Control without trust?

Sullivan directly does not attack Russia, except for the fact that he promises "not to throw Ukraine" in the conditions of "unprovoked invasion". For protection of the mode of the USA "mobilized huge efforts", transferred to Kiev of "47 various packages of military aid", imposed sanctions against Russia, "to reduce its ability to wage war", - Sullivan says, but about plans to inflict over Russia "strategic defeat" does not remember.

"We invest in the American means of nuclear control to provide their constant efficiency as competitors increase the arsenals. At the same time we signal about openness for future negotiations on arms control if competitors are interested in it", - Sullivan said. Also added that "the industrial base suffers from unresolved problems" and armed forces are influenced by it.

Biden's administration would like to resume dialogue with Moscow on control to arms control, to give to process system character. According to Sergey Ryabkov, the Deputy Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation, Washington informally suggested to consider offers on strategic stability and arms control.

Ryabkov reported that there is no "novelty" in offers, but they will be studied in "an interdepartmental format". It cannot be considered resumption of the dialogue on questions of strategic stability. "We are not ready to it. Because we consider that from the USA the return to dialogue on strategic stability, including subject of the START (The contract on reduction of strategic offensive weapons) and other plots, in that look as it practiced earlier, is just impossible", - specified the deputy minister. Especially, to do it "in a separation from all events".

The Coming Era of Competition

"The coming era of competition will not be like anything that happened before," Sullivan believes, referring to China. The United States and China are economically interdependent, maintain significant trade and investment relations. Unfair trade practices harm American workers and relations are difficult, the author of the article believes.

China, in the understanding of the Americans, enjoys the openness of America, can use American technology against the United States and its allies.

But he immediately offers a way out, practically repeating Beijing's formula: "the confrontation is really global, but not with zero sum."

Here Sullivan makes an offer to Beijing that will be difficult to refuse: "we seek to" reduce risk "and diversify, not disconnect," Sullivan hints, changing the previous position aimed at curtailing relations with the PRC.

The current strategy is to "protect a certain amount of sensitive technology by creating what some call" a small yard with a high fence... " to protect national security with the support of an interconnected global economy, "Sullivan writes.

As a result, he says, "the competition will be very intense at times. We're ready for it. Washington and Beijing need to figure out how to manage competition in order to reduce tensions and find a way to solve common problems, "- words that Joe Biden practically repeated when meeting with the Australian prime minister, adding that the United States does not want a conflict.

And he adds about international institutions that "were exclusive and did not represent the wider international community," that "Washington can no longer afford the previous," undisciplined approach to the use of military force. "

What can't you do to support the president. You can even praise Beijing for mediating the normalization of relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia. He promised that the United States would "avoid the temptation to look at the world exclusively through the prism of geopolitical rivalry."

And then he said that "high-level interaction is crucial to eliminate misunderstanding, prevent misunderstandings," as if emphasizing the crucial importance of the visit of Chinese President Xi Jinping to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in San Francisco.