Geopolitical Triangles in the Context of International Security

Geopolitical triangles play an important role in changing the balance of power in the international arena in the context of competition between traditional and emerging powers. In political discourse, there are several different interpretations of the concept of “triangle”. The formation of triangles occurs under the simultaneous influence of two factors - the political strategy of the states and the geopolitical situation. 
The article explores the configuration of triangles in the post-bipolar world. Particular attention is paid to the selection criteria for countries lying at the top of triangles: these are either the most powerful states (both traditional and emerging powers), or pivot countries.
In comparison to 1970-s with one strategic triangle (US-China-Russia) currently there are many regional  geopolitical triangles, representing predominantly ascending centers of power, which affect not only regional  security and maintain balance of power in the respective regions, but also have global impact. The article presents a theoretical overview of triangles based on an applied analysis of the US-China-Russia strategic triangle, as well as of two regional interaction schemes that are important for the Russian foreign policy strategy – Russia-India-China and Russia-Iran-Turkey.
The interaction in the strategic triangle of the RF-China-USA is analyzed in an article in the political sphere (within the framework of the UN, international institutes BRICS, SCO, EAEU, Belt and Road Initiative), in the economic and financial fields, infrastructural, scientific potentials are compared, as well as military potential and military technologies. For applied analysis of this traditional triangle, the theoretical scheme of L. Dittmer is  used.
The conclusion is made about the ideal configuration of geopolitical triangles and the redistribution of the power potential of traditional and emerging centers of power within the strategic triangle of the RF-PRC-USA.

geopolitics, international security, tripartite diplomacy, strategic triangle, regional triangles, world order, national interests, new bipolarity

1. Badrutdinova K., Degterev D., Stepanova А. (2017) Interconnections among the United States, Russia and China: Does Kissinger’s American Leadership Formula Apply? International Organisations Research Journal, vol. 12, no 1, pp. 81–109 (in Russian). DOI: 10.17323/1996-7845-2017-01-81

2. Baykov A.A. (2017) Economic Regionalism as a Planetary Phenomenon. Theory and Methodology of Comparison. Outlines of Global Transformations: Politics, Economics, Law, vol. 10, no 4, pp. 38–53 (in Russian). DOI: 10.23932/2542-0240-2017-10-4-38-53

3. Bobo L. (2010) Russia, China and the USA: Past and Future of the Strategic Triangle. Russie. Nei. Visions. No. 47, Paris: IFRI.

4. Degterev D.A. (2019) Multipolar World Order: Old Myths and New Realities. Vestnik RUDN. International Relations, vol. 19, no 3, pp. 404–419 (in Russian). DOI: 10.22363/2313-0660-2019-19-3-404-419

5. Dittmer L. (1981) The Strategic Triangle: An Elementary Game-Theoretical Analysis. World Politics, vol. 33, no 4, pp. 485–515. DOI: 10.2307/2010133

6. Dittmer L. (2014) Japan, China and the American Pivot: A Triangular Analysis. The Troubled Triangle (eds. Inoguchi T., Ikenberry G.), Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 185–211.

7. Elatskov A.B. (2015) A Generalized Model of the “Geopolitical Triangle”. Historical, Philosophical, Political and Legal Sciences, Cultural Studies and Art History. Questions of Theory and Practice,

8. no 10, part 3, pp. 56–60. Available at: https://www.elibrary.ru/download/elibrary_24155540_94859444.pdf, accessed 25.08.2020 (in Russian).

9. Gasparyan V.Z. (2017) Russia, Iran, Turkey: Problems and Prospects of Geopolitical Interaction. Archon, no 2, pp. 37–40. Available at: https://www.elibrary.ru/download/elibrary_30779511_41291482.pdf, accessed 25.08.2020 (in Russian).

10. Huasheng Z. (2019) “New Triangle” in Relations between China, Russia and the USA. Comparative Politics Russia, vol. 10, no 2, pp. 69–85 (in Russian). DOI: 10.24411/2221-3279-2019-10017

11. Khilnani S., Kumar R., Mehta P.B., Menon P., Nilekani N., Raghavan S., Saran Sh., Varadarajan S. (2012) NonAlignment 2.0. A Foreign and Strategic Policy for India in the 21 Century, Center for Policy Research.

12. Khodynskaya-Golenishcheva M.S. (2018) Syrian Crisis in a Transforming System of International Relations. The dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Historical Sciences. Moscow: MGIMO (in Russian).

13. Khudaykulova A. (2016) Conflict Management in the New Centura. Back to Proxy Wars? International Trends, vol. 14, no 4, pp. 67–79 (in Russian). DOI: 10.17994/IT.2016.14.4.47.5

14. Kissinger H. (1979) White House Years, Boston: Little, Brown and Co. Kremenyuk V.A. (2012) “The Deeper into the Wood…”: Relations in the Triangle USA-China-Russia Are Increasingly Getting Uneven. Comparative Politics Russia, vol. 3, no 4, pp. 36–46 (in Russian). DOI: 10.18611/2221-3279-2012-3-4(10)-36-46

15. Panchenko M.Yu. (2009) Governance in Asia-Pacific Region (Case of “Russia-India-China Strategic Triangle”): Inter-Paradigm Approach. Public Administration, no 21. Available at: http://e-journal.spa.msu.ru/uploads/vestnik/2009/vipusk__21._dekabr_2009_g./panchenko.pdf, accessed 25.08.2020 (in Russian).

16. Pant H.V., Rej A. (2018) Is India Ready for the Indo-Pacific? The Washington Quarterly, vol. 41, no 2, pp. 47–61. DOI: 10.1080/0163660X.2018.1485403

17. Partem M.G. (1983) The Buffer System in International Relations. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 27, no 1, pp. 3–26. DOI: 10.1177/0022002783027001001

18. Paul T.V., Underwood E. (2019) Theorizing India-US-China Strategic Triangle. India Review, vol. 18, no 4, pp. 348–367. DOI: 10.1080/14736489.2019.1662190

19. Roy-Chaudhury R., de Estrada K.S. (2018) India, the Indo-Pacific and the Quad. Survival, vol. 60, no 3, pp. 181–194. DOI: 10.1080/00396338.2018.1470773

20. Singh A.G. (2016) India, China and the US: Strategic Convergence in the Indo-Pacific. Journal of the Indian Ocean Region, vol. 12, no 2, pp. 161–176. DOI: 10.1080/19480881.2016.1226752

21. SIPRI Yearbook 2018: Armaments, Disarmament and International Security (2018). DOI: 10.1093/sipri/9780199650583.003

22. Sweijs Т., Oosterveld W., Knowles E., Schellekens M. (2014) Why Are Pivot States so Pivotal? The Role of Pivot States in Regional and Global Security, Hague: The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies.

23. Troitsky M.A. (2003) “Illusions of Triangles” in the Current Relations of Russia with the West. International Trends, no 3, pp. 101–107. Available at: http://intertrends.ru/system/Doc/ArticlePdf/830/Troitski-02.pdf, accessed 25.08.2020 (in Russian).

24. Yurtaev V.I. (2017) Particularities of Iran’s Regional Diplomacy at the Beginning of the XXIst Century. Cooperation between Russia and Iran in the Political, Economic and Cultural Fields as a Factor in Strengthening Peace and Security in Eurasia. Materials of the International Scientific-

25. practical Conference (eds. Kasyuk I., Kharichkina I.K., Polishchuk A.I.), Moscow: Moscow State Linguistic University, pp. 30–35 (in Russian).

26. Yurtaev V.I., Rogov A.S. (2017) BRICS and SCO: Particular Qualities of Formation and Activities. Vestnik RUDN. International Relations, vol. 17, no 3, pp. 469–482 (in Russian). DOI: 10.22363/2313-0660-2017-17-3-469-482

27. Zaichenko O.A. (2010) “Strategic Triangles” as a Form of Regional Cooperation: Theoretical Aspect. Actual Problems of Our Time. Materials of the 5th All-Russian Scientific-Practical Conference “Alternative World” (eds. Buyarov D.V.), Moscow, pp. 87–94 (in Russian).