Inclusive security architecture in the Middle East to counter the US expansionist policy
https://doi.org/10.26794/2226-7867-2022-12-6-97-102
Abstract
The paper analyzes the historical process of the expansionist policy of world powers in the Middle East, especially at the present stage, which is taking place in the transformation’s context of the global system of international relations. There is a gradual weakening of the influence of the US spatial expansion policy in this region. The author considers the possibilities of the Russian concept of an inclusive security architecture in ensuring stability, peace and order in the Middle East. Also, the author noted that its important component was the potential for expansion, which could open up new horizons for cooperation both at the level of the member states of the structure and in protecting the interests of third countries. The study concluded that this format of the security system could counteract the expansionist policy of the United States, and either to restrain the destructive (for Russia) policies of cross-regional powers in the region, and in that area, meets the global and regional national interests of the Russian Federation.
About the Author
D. S. Krylov
Russian Academy of Sciences
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Danila S. Krylov — Research Fellow, Department of Middle and Post-Soviet East
Moscow
References
1. Savicheva E. M. On the question of the geopolitical situation in the Middle East: the interaction of regional and global trends. Bulletin of the Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia. Series: International relations. 2014;(3):14–21. (In Russ.).
2. Engdal F. U. A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Policy and the New World Order. Moscow: War and Peace; 2014. 408 p. (In Russ.).
3. Shatilov A. B. “Obsolescence” of power as a factor in the destabilization of political regimes. Power. 2020;28(4):9–17. URL: https://doi.org/10.31171/vlast.v28i4.7406. (In Russ.).
4. Kazantsev A. A., Sergeev V. M. The crisis of “American-centric” globalization: Causes, trends, growth scenarios. Bulletin of MGIMO University. 2020;13(2):40–69. URL: https://doi.org/10.24833/2071–8160–2020–2–71–40–69. (In Russ.).
5. Bani Salameh M. A.R., Bani Salameh M. T., Al-Shra’h M. K. The Camp David Accords: Lessons and Facts. Human Mutation. 2012;10(2):203–239.
6. Guzansky Y. Defense Cooperation in the Arabian Gulf: The Peninsula Shield Force Put to the Test. Middle Eastern Studies. 2014;5(4):640–654. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/00263206.2014.901219.
7. Moiseev D. The fighting in Yemen is temporarily ending. URL: https://www.ng.ru/world/2022–04–03/8_8407_yemen.html. (In Russ.).
8. Avatkov V. A. New system for the future of Syria: Tripartite approach. Valdai International Discussion Club. URL: http://ru.valdaiclub.com/a/highlights/sistema-budushchego-sirii/. (In Russ.).
9. Twinam J. W. The Gulf. Cooperation and The Council: An American Perspective. Washington, D.C.: Middle East Policy Council; 1992. 294 p.
10. Melkumyan E. S. Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Persian Gulf as an institution for ensuring the national security of member countries. Islam in the Middle East. 2015;(9);455–464. (In Russ.).
11. Krylov D. S. Inclusive Security Architecture in the Middle East: Features of Functioning and Prospects for Expansion. International relationships. 2021;(3):1–14. URL: https://doi.org/10.7256/2454–0641.2021.3.36184. (In Russ.).
12. Lebedev S. V. New Cold War in the Middle East. Humanitarian sciences. Bulletin of the Financial University. 2022;12(2):6–10. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.26794/2226–7867–2022–12–2–6–10
13. Avatkov V.A. Neo-Ottomanism. Basic ideologeme and geostrategy in Turkey. Free thought. 2014;(3):71–78. (In Russ.).
Review
For citations:
Krylov D.S. Inclusive security architecture in the Middle East to counter the US expansionist policy. Humanities and Social Sciences. Bulletin of the Financial University. 2022;12(6):97-102. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.26794/2226-7867-2022-12-6-97-102
Views:
495
Email this article 