Мир есть результат действия (амальгамы) стратегий мирового развития.
21 сентября - Международный День Мира.
Мир есть результат действия (амальгамы) стратегий мирового развития.
Каковы стратегии - таковы и возможности достижения мира.
От каких Больших стратегий зависит мир и безопасное развитие в будущем?
Замечателен фундаментальный анализ Гранд-стратегии США проделываемый Кристофером Лэйном.
Профессор Лэйн демонстрирует, что мир и будущее Планеты впрямую зависит от отказа США от попыток установления тотальной гегемонии, от позиции исключительности, при условии принципиального изменения их "либеральной Гранд/Великой Стратегии".
Кто такой Кристофер Лэйн? - Один из ведущих исследователей американской истории и стратегической культуры, заведующий кафедрой «Разведки и национальной безопасности» в Школе управления им. Экс-президента США Дж.Буша - в A&M Университете в Техасе (http://bush.tamu.edu/about/ ), консультант Национального совета США по разведке и Совета по международным отношениям.
http://bush.tamu.edu/faculty/clayne/
В настоящее время Кристофер работает на очередной монографией, посвященной «Провалу либеральной Гранд-стратегии США - стратегии доминирования и контрмногополярности, и окончанию мира Pac Americana».
Предполагаемое название в оригинале - "After the Fall: International Politics, U.S. Grand Strategy, and the End of the Pax Americana".
Книга скоро выйдет в издательстве Йельского университета.
http://www.hpjc.org/Layne
https://calendar.fiu.edu/events/view/9955
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/10/11/what-do-voters-want/a-timely-debate-of-the-us-role-in-the-world
Christopher Layne. The Peace of Illusions. American Grand Strategy from 1940 to the Present. Cornell University Press. Ithaca and London. 2007.
“… there is a dark side to America’s mission: the belief that the United States can be secure only in an Open Door world of ideologically like-minded states. … Consequently - and ironically in view of the prevailing understanding that tolerance is intrinsic to liberalism - as a political philosophy American Liberalism is intolerant of competing political ideologies. And it has sought preemptively to discredit, and suppress, them in order to maintain its domestic intellectual and ideological ascendancy. American liberalism operates the same way abroad as it does at home.
American liberalism assumes that to be secure domestically it must extirpate hostile ideologies abroad; it can remain hegemonic at home only by attaining hegemony abroad.
American liberalism is, therefore, the hegemonic ideology at home and the ideology of hegemony abroad - and it is the fountainhead of America’s imperial ambitions.
…
In other words, the United States - and American core values - can be secure only by eliminating all external sources of ideological contagion”. p. 120.
…
America’s crusader mentality springs directly from liberalism’s intolerance of competing ideologies…” p.121.
“U.S. policymakers believe America’s values are good for the United States and right for the rest of the world, and that, in self-defense, Washington has the right to impose them on others.
… Wilsonian liberalism self-consciously rests on the conviction that the United States is a model for the world and that its values and institutions are superior to everyone else’s.
This means, however, that the United States perforce is intolerant of cultures and political systems different from its own.
The inclination to universilize liberal democracy puts the United States on a collision course with others whose ideologies, institutions, and values differ from America’s, and it causes Washington to regard world politic as a Manichean struggle between good and evil, rather than a contest between rival powers with conflicting national interests.
… A grand strategy based on moral absolutism is a prescription for conflict, not for peace”. p.123.
“… it’s not so easy for U.S. policymakers to domestic audiences why the United States must intervene in regions of marginal strategic value, or why it must act before there is any obvious threat to U.S. interests. … threat exaggeration - which includes the frequent invocation of domino imagery - is an American foreign policy tradition. … notwithstanding the cold war’s end, the domino theory retains its vitality in U.S. strategic thought. There are two reasons for this.
First, the United States remains overwhelmingly powerful, which tempts it to define security interests extravagantly.
Second, the Wilsonian ideology that underpins U.S. foreign policy has inculcated a belief that the United States has an obligation “to provide world leadership for global order, collective security, democracy, and capitalism.
…
The United States continually is forces to expand the geographical scope of its strategic commitments. Core and periphery are - or, more correctly, are perceived to be interdependent strategically.
However, while the core is constant, the ‘turbulent frontier’ in the periphery is always expanding.
U.S. policymakers fear what might happen - falling dominoes and closure - if the United States does not intervene and broaden its defensive perimeter.
…
the bottom line is that stability and peace - specifically the Pax Americana - are the preconditions for ideological and political openness.
There is no stand-alone liberal peace. American power is what keeps the world - or pats of it - from being closed to the United States ideologically and economically.
The Realization of American liberalism’s aspirations - in the guise of the political Open Doors - requires the United States to establish its hegemony in key regions.
Consequently, liberalism’s grand strategic consequences - overextension, military intervention, and war - are contrary to those claimed by liberal international scholars.” pp.132-133.
«Any state that attempts to counterbalance the United States on its own runs the risk that it will be taken down by the United States preventively, before it becomes strong enough to contest U.S. hegemony.
There is nothing new about preventive war as a tool of grand strategy, and, just as ‘clipping’ a rival is always an option in the Mafia, it always an option for hegemons worried about rising challenges.
… The National Security Strategy states that the United States will prevent any other state from ’surpassing’, or even equaling, the power of the United States. To accomplish this aim, the United States will maintain overwhelming military superiority so that it ‘can dissuade other countries from initiating future military competitions’ against the United States, and if necessary, to ‘impose the will of the United States … on any adversaries’. p.133.
National Security Strategy of the United States. Washington D.C.: The White House, September 2002, pp. 12-13, 15.
< http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/63562.pdf>
Мир есть результат действия (амальгамы) стратегий мирового развития.
Каковы стратегии - таковы и возможности достижения мира.
От каких Больших стратегий зависит мир и безопасное развитие в будущем?
Замечателен фундаментальный анализ Гранд-стратегии США проделываемый Кристофером Лэйном.
Профессор Лэйн демонстрирует, что мир и будущее Планеты впрямую зависит от отказа США от попыток установления тотальной гегемонии, от позиции исключительности, при условии принципиального изменения их "либеральной Гранд/Великой Стратегии".
Кто такой Кристофер Лэйн? - Один из ведущих исследователей американской истории и стратегической культуры, заведующий кафедрой «Разведки и национальной безопасности» в Школе управления им. Экс-президента США Дж.Буша - в A&M Университете в Техасе (http://bush.tamu.edu/about/ ), консультант Национального совета США по разведке и Совета по международным отношениям.
http://bush.tamu.edu/faculty/clayne/
В настоящее время Кристофер работает на очередной монографией, посвященной «Провалу либеральной Гранд-стратегии США - стратегии доминирования и контрмногополярности, и окончанию мира Pac Americana».
Предполагаемое название в оригинале - "After the Fall: International Politics, U.S. Grand Strategy, and the End of the Pax Americana".
Книга скоро выйдет в издательстве Йельского университета.
http://www.hpjc.org/Layne
https://calendar.fiu.edu/events/view/9955
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/10/11/what-do-voters-want/a-timely-debate-of-the-us-role-in-the-world
Christopher Layne. The Peace of Illusions. American Grand Strategy from 1940 to the Present. Cornell University Press. Ithaca and London. 2007.
“… there is a dark side to America’s mission: the belief that the United States can be secure only in an Open Door world of ideologically like-minded states. … Consequently - and ironically in view of the prevailing understanding that tolerance is intrinsic to liberalism - as a political philosophy American Liberalism is intolerant of competing political ideologies. And it has sought preemptively to discredit, and suppress, them in order to maintain its domestic intellectual and ideological ascendancy. American liberalism operates the same way abroad as it does at home.
American liberalism assumes that to be secure domestically it must extirpate hostile ideologies abroad; it can remain hegemonic at home only by attaining hegemony abroad.
American liberalism is, therefore, the hegemonic ideology at home and the ideology of hegemony abroad - and it is the fountainhead of America’s imperial ambitions.
…
In other words, the United States - and American core values - can be secure only by eliminating all external sources of ideological contagion”. p. 120.
…
America’s crusader mentality springs directly from liberalism’s intolerance of competing ideologies…” p.121.
“U.S. policymakers believe America’s values are good for the United States and right for the rest of the world, and that, in self-defense, Washington has the right to impose them on others.
… Wilsonian liberalism self-consciously rests on the conviction that the United States is a model for the world and that its values and institutions are superior to everyone else’s.
This means, however, that the United States perforce is intolerant of cultures and political systems different from its own.
The inclination to universilize liberal democracy puts the United States on a collision course with others whose ideologies, institutions, and values differ from America’s, and it causes Washington to regard world politic as a Manichean struggle between good and evil, rather than a contest between rival powers with conflicting national interests.
… A grand strategy based on moral absolutism is a prescription for conflict, not for peace”. p.123.
“… it’s not so easy for U.S. policymakers to domestic audiences why the United States must intervene in regions of marginal strategic value, or why it must act before there is any obvious threat to U.S. interests. … threat exaggeration - which includes the frequent invocation of domino imagery - is an American foreign policy tradition. … notwithstanding the cold war’s end, the domino theory retains its vitality in U.S. strategic thought. There are two reasons for this.
First, the United States remains overwhelmingly powerful, which tempts it to define security interests extravagantly.
Second, the Wilsonian ideology that underpins U.S. foreign policy has inculcated a belief that the United States has an obligation “to provide world leadership for global order, collective security, democracy, and capitalism.
…
The United States continually is forces to expand the geographical scope of its strategic commitments. Core and periphery are - or, more correctly, are perceived to be interdependent strategically.
However, while the core is constant, the ‘turbulent frontier’ in the periphery is always expanding.
U.S. policymakers fear what might happen - falling dominoes and closure - if the United States does not intervene and broaden its defensive perimeter.
…
the bottom line is that stability and peace - specifically the Pax Americana - are the preconditions for ideological and political openness.
There is no stand-alone liberal peace. American power is what keeps the world - or pats of it - from being closed to the United States ideologically and economically.
The Realization of American liberalism’s aspirations - in the guise of the political Open Doors - requires the United States to establish its hegemony in key regions.
Consequently, liberalism’s grand strategic consequences - overextension, military intervention, and war - are contrary to those claimed by liberal international scholars.” pp.132-133.
«Any state that attempts to counterbalance the United States on its own runs the risk that it will be taken down by the United States preventively, before it becomes strong enough to contest U.S. hegemony.
There is nothing new about preventive war as a tool of grand strategy, and, just as ‘clipping’ a rival is always an option in the Mafia, it always an option for hegemons worried about rising challenges.
… The National Security Strategy states that the United States will prevent any other state from ’surpassing’, or even equaling, the power of the United States. To accomplish this aim, the United States will maintain overwhelming military superiority so that it ‘can dissuade other countries from initiating future military competitions’ against the United States, and if necessary, to ‘impose the will of the United States … on any adversaries’. p.133.
National Security Strategy of the United States. Washington D.C.: The White House, September 2002, pp. 12-13, 15.
< http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/63562.pdf>