Vlad Alex Vernygora, 14.09.2017,

NATO and its partnerships in the Asia-Pacific vs. China’s “marching West”: a new international system in the making? *

Global multi-polar redesign has already become an ordinary attribute of the actuality – a good number of serious scholars consider it independent variable in their research on international relations. The framework that was established by Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill in February 1945 is increasingly looking like an atavism of the ancient past. The San Francisco Conference, which had almost precisely followed the geostrategic ‘recipe’ prescribed by the three ‘healers’ at Yalta, wanted the world to believe that it was up to 51 countries to establish the United Nations (UN). Definitely, it was not up to them, but an excellent myth was created. From then on, every single General Debate of the UN General Assembly has been featured by dozens of statements delivered by different political leaders on how proud their respective nations are to be known in history as inaugural members of the mighty UN. In such situations, there is always a temptation to ask a regular Ukraine, for example, a set of simple questions: “Hey, Ukraine! Did the fact that you were admitted to the UN on 24 October 1945 help you to stop the most recent Russian aggression? Why did the “other peace-loving states”, which, according to the UN’s main document, “accept[ed] the obligations contained in the […] Charter and, in the judgment of the Organisation, […] [were supposed to be] able and willing to carry out these obligations”1, do very little to prevent the appalling tragedy of Ilovaisk in August 2014? How could it happen that one of the major “peace-loving states” is the actual aggressor? Please do not answer, these were rhetorical enquiries.”