Strategic Triangles and Balancing in World Politics
Abstract
Trilateral diplomacy is a common format of interaction in international relations, which forms various configurations of the balance of power within the framework of triangles. The concept of a “triangle” is characterized by ambivalence, has a variety of characteristics and principles of formation.
The article provides an overview of the theoretical discourse on strategic triangles, as well as of practical examples of trilateral diplomacy of the past and present day. The main characteristics of strategic triangles and the features of changes in their configuration are identified (the case of USA–PRC–USSR triangle). Classification of both symmetric and asymmetric triangles (unicenter and bicenter) are given, the concept of buffer states, as well as regional conflicts with the participation of a great power as a defender, are presented.
The most influential countries at the global and regional levels, forming geopolitical triangles, are identified basing on the Composite Index of National Capability (CINC). The concept of pivot states is analyzed permitting to indicate relatively small but geopolitically important countries, forming triangles together with influential states.
The main strategic triangles of the modern world order are analyzed, presenting mostly countries of Asia (China, Japan, India), Russian Federation, USA and EU. The main trends of global competition based on geopolitical triangles in the XXI-st century are identified.
Keywords
strategic triangle,
regional triangles,
tripartite diplomacy,
world order,
balance of power,
containment,
national capacity,
pivot states
Supporting agencies: The reported study was funded by RFBR within research project no 20-514-93003 “Russia and China in the global political space: harmonization of national interests in global governance”.
About the Authors
D. A. Degterev
Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN); MGIMO University; Saint Petersburg State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Denis A. Degterev, DSc in Politics, PhD in Economics, Professor, Head of the Department of Theory and History of International Relations; Professor, Department of World Economy; Professor, Department of European Studies
117198, Miklukho-Maklaya St., 6, Moscow;
119454, Vernadskogo Av., 76, Moscow;
199034, Universitetskaya Emb., 7–9, Saint Petersburg
M. S. Ramich
Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN)
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Mirzet S. Ramich, Candidate, Department of Theory and History of International Relations
117198, Miklukho-Maklaya St., 6, Moscow
References
1. Aleskerov F.T., Kurapova M.S., Mescheryakova N.G., Mironyuk M.G., Shvydun S.V. (2016). The Network Approach in the Study of Interstate Conflicts. Political Science, no 4, pp. 111–137. Available at: https://www.elibrary.ru/download/elibrary_27685865_15068490.pdf, accessed 21.04.2021 (in Russian).
2. Ali S. (2017). US-Chinese Strategic Triangles. Examining Indo-Pacific Insecurity, Cham: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-57747-0
3. Bogaturov A.D. (1997). Great Powers in the Pacific Ocean. History and Theory of International Relations in East Asia after World War II. (1945–1995), Moscow: Konvert-MONF (in Russian).
4. Brzezinski Z. (1996). Geopolitical Pivot Points. The Washington Quarterly, vol. 19, no 4, pp. 206–216. DOI: 10.1080/01636609609550224
5. Brzezinski Z. (2018). The Grand Chess-board, Moscow: AST (in Russian).
6. Caplow T. (1956). A Theory of Coalitions in the Triad. American Sociological Review, vol. 21, no 4, pp. 489–493. DOI: 10.2307/2088718
7. Caplow T. (1959). Further Development of a Theory of Coalitions in the Triad. American Journal of Sociology, vol. 64, no 5, pp. 488–493. DOI: 10.1086/222544
8. Davydov A.S. (2015). Beijing, Washington, Moscow: Relations in the Context of Global Architectonics Transformation, Moscow: IFES RAS (in Russian).
9. Degterev D.A. (2015). Network Analysis of International Relations. Vestnik (Herald) of St. Petersburg State University. Series 6: Political Science. International Relations, no 4, pp. 119–138. Available at: http://vestnik.spbu.ru/html15/s06/s06v4/11.pdf, accessed 21.04.2021 (in Russian).
10. Degterev D.A. (2020). Assessing the International Balance of Power and the Formation of a Multipolar World, Moscow: Rusains (in Russian).
11. Degterev D.A., Istomin I.A. (2015). System Modeling of International Relations. World Economy and International Relations, no 11, pp. 17–30 (in Russian). DOI: 10.20542/0131-2227-2015-59-11-17-30
12. Degterev D.A., Khudaykulova A.V. (2018). Balance of Power in International Political Science: Theoretical Concepts and Applied Analysis. National Security / Nota Bene, no 1, pp. 1–12 (in Russian). DOI: 10.7256/2454-0668.2018.1.25193
13. Degterev D.A., Nikulin M.A., Ramich M.S. (eds.) (2021). The Balance of Power in Key Regions: Conceptualization and Applied Analysis: Scientific Monograph, Moscow: RUDN University (in Russian).
14. Degterev D.A., Stepkin E.A. (2013). Dynamic Equilibrium. The U.S. Role in Israel’s Military Supremacy in the Middle East. Asia and Africa Today, no 10, pp. 19–25. Available at: https://www.elibrary.ru/download/elibrary_20339294_45832955.pdf, accessed 21.04.2021 (in Russian).
15. Desjardins J. (2017). US Military Deployment by Country. Visual Capitalist, March 18, 2017. Available at: http://www.visualcapitalist.com/u-s-military-personnel-deployments-country/, accessed 21.04.2021.
16. Dittmer L. (1981). The Strategic Triangle: An Elementary Game-Theoretical Analysis. World Politics, vol. 33, no 4, pp. 485–515. DOI: 10.2307/2010133
17. Dobbins J., Shatz H., Wyne A. (2019). Russia Is a Rogue, Not a Peer; China Is a Peer, Not a Rogue. Different Challenges, Different Responses, Santa Monica: RAND Corporation. DOI: 10.7249/PE310
18. Efremova K.A. (2016). Unequal Powers: Myanmar in the China-India-ASEAN Strategic Triangle, Moscow: MGIMO-University (in Russian).
19. Fürtig H. (2007). Conflict and Cooperation in the Persian Gulf: The Interregional Order and US Policy. Middle East Journal, vol. 61, no 4, pp. 627–640. DOI: 10.3751/61.4.13
20. Gantman V.I. (ed.) (1984). The System, Structure and Process of Development of Modern International Relations, Moscow: Nauka (in Russian).
21. Gasprinsky I. (1896). The Russian-Eastern Agreement: Thoughts, Notes, and Wishes of Ismail Gasprinsky, Bakhchisaray: Interpreter (in Russian).
22. Huasheng C. (2019). The “New Triangle” in China–Russia–U.S. Relations. Comparative Politics, no 2, pp. 69–85 (in Russian). DOI: 10.24411/2221-3279-2019-10017
23. Husain A. (1982). The West, South Africa and Israel: A Strategic Triangle. Third World Quarterly, vol. 4, no 1, pp. 44–73. DOI: 10.1080/01436598208419607
24. Intriligator M., Luterbacher U. (eds.) (1994). Cooperative Models in International Relations Research, Berlin: Springer.
25. Jervis R. (1997). System Effects: Complexity in Political and Social Life, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
26. Kavanagh J. (2014). U.S. Security-Related Agreements in Force since 1955. Introducing a New Database, Santa Monica: RAND Corporation.
27. Khudaykulova A.V. (2016). Conflict Management in the New Century. International Trends, vol. 14, no 4, pp. 67–79 (in Russian). DOI: 10.17994/IT.2016.14.4.47.5
28. Khudaykulova A.V. (2020). Geopolitical Triangles in the Context of International Security. Outlines of Global Transformations: Politics, Economics, Law, vol. 13, no 4, pp. 53–73 (in Russian). DOI: 10.23932/2542-0240-2020-13-4-3
29. Khudaykulova A.V., Ramich M.S. (2020). Quad 2.0: A Quadrilateral Dialogue for Counterbalancing China in the Indo-Pacific. POLIS, no 3, pp. 23–43 (in Russian). DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2020.03.03
30. Kilgour M., Brams St. (1997). The Truel. Mathematics Magazine, vol. 70, no 5, pp. 315–326. DOI: 10.1080/0025570X.1997.11996570
31. Kissinger H. (1979). White House Years, Boston: Little, Brown and Co.
32. Kortunov A.V. (2018). Indo-Pacific or Community of Common Destiny? RIAC, May 28, 2018. Available at: https://russian-council.ru/analytics-and-comments/analytics/indo-patsifika-ili-soobshchestvo-edinoy-sudby/, accessed 21.04.2021 (in Russian).
33. McDonald H.B., Rosecrance R. (1985). Alliance and Structural Balance in the International System: A Reinter-pretation. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 29, no 1, pp. 57–82. DOI: 10.1177/0022002785029001004
34. Melvil A.Y., Ilyin M.V., Meleshkina E.Y., Mironyuk M.G., Polunin Y.A., Timofeev I.N., Kharitonova O.G., Vaslavsky Y.I. (2007). The Political Atlas of the Modern World. Multidimensional Statistical Analysis of Political Systems of Modern States, Moscow: MGIMO-University (in Russian).
35. Morozov Yu.V. (1) (2020). Ways to Neutralize Challenges and Threats to Russia’s National Interests in the Framework of the “Strategic Triangle of Russia–USA–China”, Moscow: RAS IFES (in Russian).
36. Morozov Yu.V. (2) (2020). “Pitfalls” of Russia’s Military-Political Сooperation with the United States and China. Far Eastern Affairs, no 2, pp. 21–36 (in Russian). DOI: 10.31857/S013128120009751-7
37. 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
38. Podberezkin A.I., Borishpolets K.P. (2014). Some Aspects of the Analysis of the Military and Political Situation, Moscow: MGIMO-University (in Russian).
39. Reuben S., Dodd-Parr F. (2019). Examining the Immanent Dilemma of Small States in the Asia-Pacific: The Strategic Triangle between New Zealand, the US and China. The Pacific Review, vol. 32, no 1, pp. 90–112. DOI: 10.1080/09512748.2017.1417324
40. Romer J.-C. (2014). The Weimar Triangle and the Ukrainian Crisis. Vestnik RUDN. International Relations, no 4, pp. 7–12. Available at: http://journals.rudn.ru/international-relations/article/view/10396, accessed 21.04.2021 (in Russian).
41. Satake T., Hemmings J. (2018). Japan–Australia Security Cooperation in the Bilateral and Multilateral Contexts. International Affairs, vol. 94, no 4, pp. 815–834. DOI: 10.1093/ia/iiy028
42. Salitsky A.I., Semenova N.K. (2019). Rise of China and Russian-Chinese Rapprochement. Outlines of Global Transformations: Politics, Economics, Law, vol. 12, no 1, pp. 117–132 (in Russian). DOI: 10.23932/2542-0240-2019-12-1-117-132
43. 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. 61–176. DOI: 10.1080/19480881.2016.1226752
44. Smith P. (2011). The China–Pakistan–United States Strategic Triangle: From Cold War to the “War on Terrorism”. Asian Affairs: An American Review, vol. 38, no 4, pp. 197–220. DOI: 10.1080/00927678.2011.604291
45. Sweijs T., 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.
46. Troitsky M.A. (2008). “Illusions of Triangles” in Russia’s Contemporary Relations with the West. International Trends, no 3, pp. 101–107. Available at: http://www.intertrends.ru/system/Doc/ArticlePdf/830/Troitski-02.pdf, accessed 21.04.2021 (in Russian).
47. Tsvyk A.V. (2018). “Greater Europe” or “Greater Eurasia”? In Search of New Ideas for Eurasian Integration. Vestnik RUDN: Sociology, vol. 18, no 2, pp. 262–270 (in Russian). DOI: 10.22363/2313-2272-2018-18-2-262-270
48. Yurtaev V.I. (2017). Peculiarities of Iran’s Regional Diplomacy at the Beginning of the 21st Century. Cooperation between Russia and Iran in Political, Economic and Cultural Areas as a Factor in Strengthening Peace and Security in Eurasia. Proceedings of the International Scientific-Practical Conference (eds. Kasyuk A.Y., Kharichkin I.K., Polischuk A.I.), Moscow: Moscow State Linguistic University, pp. 30–35 (in Russian).
49. Zhang М. (1998). The Emerging Asia – Pacific Triangle. Australian Journal of International Affairs, vol. 52, no 1, pp. 47–61. DOI: 10.1080/10357719808445237
Review
For citations:
Degterev D.A., Ramich M.S. Strategic Triangles and Balancing in World Politics. Outlines of global transformations: politics, economics, law. 2021;14(3):23-43. (In Russ.)
Views:
1440
Email this article 