попал под лошадь
Неожиданно обнаружил на просторах scholar.google статью, классифицирующую взгляды российского экспертного сообщества в отношении Китая, российско-китайских отношений и влияния Китая на безопасность в АТР.
Цитирую:
In Russia’s expert debate on Chinese intentions in Northeast Asia, three schools of thought can be identified.
The alarmists, remaining from the legacy of the 1990s, see China as an aggressive rising power aiming to change the status quo in the region and globally. China’s aim is not security or international environment that favors domestic transformation, but global dominance and territorial expansion. The most obvious target for these plans is Russia; so the country should be prepared to fend off an inevitable Chinese invasion. This school, once mainstream, represents residual distrust towards China. Not having an impact in professional circles, which scorn attempts to present China as a bogeyman or threat to the Far East. One reason is that the major proponent of this school, military analyst Alexander Khramchikhin, is not a China expert. Nevertheless, such writings attract a lot of public attention and influence public opinion, particularly that of the Russian intelligentsia in big cities.
The second and largest group, the realists (Yakov Berger, Alexander Gabuev, Igor Denisov, Ivan Zuenko, Vasily Kashin, Vladimir Portyakov, Vitaly Vorobiev), see China’s goal in Northeast Asia as attempting to acquire the status of regional major power able to fend off any invasion, as well as to become dominant in the local balance of power in the long run. Representatives of this group argue a lot on details, such as whether China has the ambition to challenge the United States as the primary security provider in Asia, as well as whether Beijing has a coherent strategy at all. Thinkers in this school would agree that China’s intentions are driven primarily by domestic concerns, its view of security is more complex than just its military posture and involves geo-economics too, and Russia should not view China as a threat, but needs to be aware of some risks.
The third school, the quasi-realists (Yuri Beloborov, Timofey Bordachev, Evgeny Kanaev, Vasily Likhachev, Anatoly Klimenko, Vladimir Petrovsky, Mikhail Titarenko), have been present since the fall of the USSR, but now are gaining prominence and becoming closer to mainstream ideology. Representatives of this school imply a realists’ (in IR theory’s sense) approach logic to inter-state relations, but narrow China’s interests down to opposing the United States. They believe that Beijing’s policy in Northeast Asia is a reaction to U.S. attempts to limit China’s rise and maintain global dominance, and thus conflict between the two powers is immanent, and a clash is a matter of time. Chinese policy, they state, can be seen as self-defense, and Sino-American conflict is inevitable Russia should join China in this fight, providing sophisticated weapons or even entering into a formal alliance.
Был зачислен автором статьи к школе "реалистов" (в отличной компании, надо сказать!), что в общем-то соответствует и моим взглядам, и моему самоощущению в системе экспертных координат. А в статье вообще много интересного - всем интересующимся highly recommended.
Цитирую:
In Russia’s expert debate on Chinese intentions in Northeast Asia, three schools of thought can be identified.
The alarmists, remaining from the legacy of the 1990s, see China as an aggressive rising power aiming to change the status quo in the region and globally. China’s aim is not security or international environment that favors domestic transformation, but global dominance and territorial expansion. The most obvious target for these plans is Russia; so the country should be prepared to fend off an inevitable Chinese invasion. This school, once mainstream, represents residual distrust towards China. Not having an impact in professional circles, which scorn attempts to present China as a bogeyman or threat to the Far East. One reason is that the major proponent of this school, military analyst Alexander Khramchikhin, is not a China expert. Nevertheless, such writings attract a lot of public attention and influence public opinion, particularly that of the Russian intelligentsia in big cities.
The second and largest group, the realists (Yakov Berger, Alexander Gabuev, Igor Denisov, Ivan Zuenko, Vasily Kashin, Vladimir Portyakov, Vitaly Vorobiev), see China’s goal in Northeast Asia as attempting to acquire the status of regional major power able to fend off any invasion, as well as to become dominant in the local balance of power in the long run. Representatives of this group argue a lot on details, such as whether China has the ambition to challenge the United States as the primary security provider in Asia, as well as whether Beijing has a coherent strategy at all. Thinkers in this school would agree that China’s intentions are driven primarily by domestic concerns, its view of security is more complex than just its military posture and involves geo-economics too, and Russia should not view China as a threat, but needs to be aware of some risks.
The third school, the quasi-realists (Yuri Beloborov, Timofey Bordachev, Evgeny Kanaev, Vasily Likhachev, Anatoly Klimenko, Vladimir Petrovsky, Mikhail Titarenko), have been present since the fall of the USSR, but now are gaining prominence and becoming closer to mainstream ideology. Representatives of this school imply a realists’ (in IR theory’s sense) approach logic to inter-state relations, but narrow China’s interests down to opposing the United States. They believe that Beijing’s policy in Northeast Asia is a reaction to U.S. attempts to limit China’s rise and maintain global dominance, and thus conflict between the two powers is immanent, and a clash is a matter of time. Chinese policy, they state, can be seen as self-defense, and Sino-American conflict is inevitable Russia should join China in this fight, providing sophisticated weapons or even entering into a formal alliance.
Был зачислен автором статьи к школе "реалистов" (в отличной компании, надо сказать!), что в общем-то соответствует и моим взглядам, и моему самоощущению в системе экспертных координат. А в статье вообще много интересного - всем интересующимся highly recommended.