Institute of World Economy and International Relations
Russian Academy of Sciences
Over the last two years or so the role of the United States in the post-bipolar world has been widely discussed. Two analytical camps can be defined with a certain degree of conventionality - that of "the optimists" and that of "the skeptics" whose evaluation of this phenomenon comes from absolutely different approaches to the treatment of the current facts and trends.
As for "the optimists", they sincerely believe that the current difficulties the US faces are not to be regarded absolute as they are transitional in character. The nation's economy is still healthy, while the inevitable alternative to the "unipolar" leadership of the United States will be the universal domination of chaos and anarchy. Which means that the "monopolar" world is, in accordance with the paradigm of the sort is more reliable than any other global "project".
"The skeptics" see the situation in a different light. (I can discern the roots of their ideas in the logic and methodology of geopolitics of Walt Rostow). Unlike the "optimists" they believe that the United States has proven itself politically unprepared to play the role of the only global leader, and their "unilateralist" intentions failed to withstand the collision with the fast changing realities of the world at the outset of the third millennium. As a result we are witnessing the shrinking of the project "Pax Americana" that right from the start was a skillfully performed PR act rather than a firmly based political reality. The echo of such "skepticism" can be infrequently heard from the global mass media.
For example, Indian political analyst V.Banerjee argues: "the United States realizes its inability to maintain world order and control it the way it intends. Realization of its limited potential forces the United States to seek assistance from regional powers like Nigeria and Sou ... Читать далее