Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Multipolarity and the East Asian Balance of Power

  • Chapter
Russia as an Aspiring Great Power in East Asia

Part of the book series: St Antony’s Series ((STANTS))

  • 139 Accesses

Abstract

Calls for the creation of a multipolar world, such as Yeltsin’s cited above, were a frequent feature in official statements during both the Yeltsin and Putin presidencies. Balance of power thinking informed much of the reasoning behind the Multipolarity perspective held by many of the Russian foreign policy elite. Their advocacy of a multipolar world reflected their aspirations to redress Russia’s declining power while constraining US power globally. It was also illustrative of the enduring legacy of Russia’s ‘great-power status’ embedded in the mindset of its foreign policy elite.2 While Russia recognised that it could not match the US’s power in the foreseeable future, given its internal problems, it nonetheless aspired for a great-power status that was, ideally, second only to the US. A multipolar world was thus perceived as the international structure that corresponded to Russia’s aim of restraining US power while relatively enhancing Russia’s. Multipolarity was arguably well reflected in East Asia’s changing strategic and political environment where a number of influential ‘poles’ reside. Indeed, East Asia remained, to a far greater degree than Europe, a region where Cold War mindsets and realist balance of power thinking still exerted much influence on the foreign policy of each regional power.3 The region had yet to construct a viable and effective security structure, while economic interdependence, though on the rise, could easily be susceptible to unresolved political conflicts and historical animosities.

We are in favour of the former bloc structure with its wish to impose its dictates on others being finally replaced by a new multipolar structure. Neither Russia nor China can accept attempts at domination from any centre or interference in their internal affairs.

(Boris Yeltsin)1

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. Oleg Arin, XXI Veka: Mir Bez Rossii (Moscow: Algoritm, 2002), p. 276–7.

    Google Scholar 

  2. For example see ‘Is the World Becoming Multipolar?’; Evgenii Bazhanov, ‘A Multipolar World is Inevitable’, International Affairs, vol. 49, no. 5, 2003, pp. 20–2; Forsberg, et al., ‘Foreign Policy of the Communists’, p. 23;

    Google Scholar 

  3. Alexander Sergounin, ‘Discussions of International Relations in Post-Communism Russia’, Communist and Post-Communist Studies, vol. 37, 2004, pp. 29–30; ‘About the Russian Far East and Northeast Asian Economic Cooperation’, p. 7; Anatolii Klimenko, ‘Globalizatsiia i ee vliianie na voennuiu politiku i voennuiu strategiiu’, Voennaia Mysl’, no. 5, 2002, pp. 14–15; Dmitrii Zhirnov, ‘Rossiia, Kitai, Mnogopoliarnost’’, Svobodnaia Mysl’-XXI, no. 5, 2001, pp. 34–48; and Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces Anatolii Kvashnin’s comments in Interfax, 18 January 2003, FBIS-SOV-2003–0118.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Sergei Rogov, ‘Equal Proximity to Power Centres a Priority’, Nezavisimoe Voennoe Obozrenie, no. 1, Johnson’s Russia List, no. 5034, 18 January 2001; Anatolii Torkunov, ‘International Relations after the Kosovo Crisis’, in Andrei Melville & Tatiana Shakleina (eds) Russian Foreign Policy in Transition (Budapest: CEU Press, 2005), p. 287;

    Google Scholar 

  5. and Aleksei Bogaturov, Velikie Derzhavy v Tikhom Okeane (Moscow: Konvert-MONF, 1997), p. 49.

    Google Scholar 

  6. For example, Aleksei Bogaturov, Sovremennye Teorii Stabil’nosti i Mezhdunarodnye Otnosheniia Rossii v Vostochnoi Azii v 1970–90-e gg. (Moscow: ISKRAN, 1996), pp. 191–207.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Aleksandr Iakovlev’s, ‘I vse zhe na gorizonte dvukhpoliusnii mir’, Problemy Dal’nego Vostoka, no. 4, 2000, p. 40, and ‘Rossiia i Kitai v stroitel’stve novogo mirovogo poriadka’, Problemy Dal’nego Vostoka, no. 6, 1998, p. 6. See also Iakovlev’s and V. Andrianov’s chapters in Kitai, Rossiia, Strany ATR i Perspektivy Mezhtsivilizatsionnykh Otnoshenii v XXI veke (Moscow: IDVRAN, 2001), pp. 7–15.

    Google Scholar 

  8. From author’s discussions, Moscow, October–November 2005. However, a few at MGIMO and ISKRAN saw it as US-dominated but transitory, while some others at the IDVRAN saw it as becoming US-China bipolarity. See also Bogaturov, Sovremennye Teorii, pp. 134–81; Vladimir Fedotov, ‘O vozmozhnykh modeliakh regional’noi bezopasnosti v ATR’ and Aleksandr Zarubin, ‘Mnogopoliarnaia geo-politicheskaia konfiguratsiia v ATR i bezopasnost’ RF’, both in Evgenii Bazhanov, Vladimir Li, and Vladimir Fedotov, (eds) Problemy obespecheniia bezopasnosti v ATR, (Moscow: Nauchnaia Kniga, 1999), pp. 14, 80.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Evgenii Primakov’s ‘The World on the Eve of the 21st Century’, International Affairs, vol. 42, no. 5/6, 1996, pp. 2–14, and ‘Multipolar World and the UN’, International Affairs, vol. 43, no. 10, 1997, p. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Evgenii Primakov, ‘Rossiia v Mirovoi Politike’, Diplomaticheskii Vestnik, no. 7, July 1998, pp. 78–9. See also Flemming Splidsboel-Hansen, ‘Past and Future Meet’, Europe-Asia Studies, vol. 54, no. 3, 2002, pp. 377–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Strobe Talbott, The Russia Hand (New York: Random House, 2002), p. 296.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Mark Katz, ‘Primakov Redux? Putin’s Pursuit of “Multipolarism” in Asia’, Demokratizatsiya, vol. 14, no. 1, 2006, pp. 145–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. See Marian Leighton, ‘From KGB to MFA’, Post Soviet Prospects, vol. 4, no. 2, 1996, p. 5.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Grigorii Karasin, ‘Russia and China’, International Affairs, vol. 43, no. 3, 1997, p. 28.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Sergei Kortunov, ‘Invigorating Russia’s Foreign Policy’, Russia in Global Affairs, vol.3, no.4, 2005, p. 29.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Konstantin Vnukov, ‘Russians, Chinese — Brothers Forever?’, International Affairs, vol. 52, no. 2, 2006, p. 133. See Statement at http://www.politicalaffairs.net/ article/view/1455/1/108 (accessed March 2008).

    Google Scholar 

  17. See M. Krupianko and L. Areshidze, ‘Perspektivy razvitiia strategicheskoi situat-sii v vostochnoi azii’, Vostok, Afro-Aziatskie Obshchestva: Istoriia i Sovremennost’, no. 2, 2002, p. 193; and Anatolii Torkunov, (ed.) Sovremennye Mezhdunarodnye Otnosheniia (Moscow: MGIMO, 1999), p. 341.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Eduard Grebenshchikov, ‘ATR-Kontury Rossiiskogo Podkhoda’, MEiMO, no. 1, 2001, p. 47; and Mikhail Nosov, Challenges to the Strategic Balance in East Asia on eve of the 21st Century (Virginia: Centre for Naval Analyses, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Dmitrii Trenin, ‘Less is More’, The Washington Quarterly, vol. 24, no. 3, 2001, p. 143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Aleksandr Losiukov, ‘O Strukturakh Dialoga i Sotrudnichestva v ATR’, in Gosudarstva Aziatsko-Tikhookeanskogo Regiona (Moscow: Nauchnaia Kniga, 2002), p. 14;

    Google Scholar 

  21. Anatolii Boliatko, Dal’nii Vostok (Moscow: IDVRAN, 2003), p. 42;

    Google Scholar 

  22. Iurii Tsyganov, et al., Russia and Northeast Asia, Research Output, vol. 11, no. 2, (Tokyo: NIRA, 1998), p. 3;

    Google Scholar 

  23. Gleb Ivashentsov, ‘Russia-South Korea’, International Affairs, vol. 52, no. 1, 2006, pp. 114–5;

    Google Scholar 

  24. Vladimir Petrovskii, Aziatsko-Tikhookeanskie Rezhimy Bezopasnosti Posle “Kholodnoi Voiny” (Moscow: Pamiatniki Istoricheskoi Mysli, 1998), p. 193;

    Google Scholar 

  25. and Aleksei Voskressenskii, ‘“Sterzhen’” Aziatskogo Azimuta Vneshnei Politiki Rossii’, Pro et Contra, vol. 6, no. 4, 2001, pp. 74–93.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Which particular SEA country was seen as most important for Russia varied among SEA experts in both MID and academia. Author’s interviews, Moscow, October–November 2005; Maletin, SSSR/RF-ASEAN, pp. 78–9; V. Belokrenitskii and A. Voskresenskii, ‘Vneshniaia politika Rossii na Aziatskom napravlenii’, in Anatolii Torkunov, (ed.) Sovremennye Mezhdunarodnye Otnosheniia (Moscow: MGIMO, 2004), pp. 880–1; and ‘Indonesia is great regional power, Russian air force chief says’, Antara News, 3 December 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Leszek Buszynski, ‘Russia and Southeast Asia: A New Relationship’, Contemporary Southeast Asia, vol.28, no.2, 2006, p. 285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Rafis Abazov, ‘Dialogue between Russia and ASEAN’, International Affairs, vol. 45, no. 5–6, 1996, pp. 88–90; Viktor Sumskii, ‘ISEAS-IMEMO: Vozobnovlenie Dialoga?’, MEiMO, no. 10, 2005, p. 65; Vsevolod Ovchinnikov, ‘Aziia tozhe ne za gorami’, Rossiiskaia Gazeta, 29 July 1998; and Boliatko, Dal’nii Vostok, p. 80. ASEAN can be seen as adopting an ‘omni-enmeshment strategy’, of engaging all the major powers. See Evelyn Goh, ‘Great Powers and Southeast Asian Regional Security Strategies’, IDSS Working Paper, Singapore, no. 84, July 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Iu. Raikov, ‘Rossiia-ASEAN: Pervyi opyt sotrudnichestva’, in I. Ivanov & M. Titarenko, (eds) Rossiia v ATES i v ATR, (Moscow: MID & IDVRAN, 2001), p. 136.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Rodolfo Severino, ‘Russia, ASEAN and East Asia’, in Gennadii Chufrin & Mark Hong (eds) Russia-ASEAN Relations: New Directions (Singapore: ISEAS-IMEMO, 2007), p. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  31. E. Wayne Merry, ‘Moscow’s Retreat and Beijing’s Rise as Regional Great Power’, Problems of Post-Communism, vol. 50, no. 3, 2003, p. 21.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Iurii Golotiuk, ‘Moscow and Beijing: Brothers Forever — Part II’, Izvestiia, 9 June 1999, Defence & Security, DSE-No.067; and Iurii Tsyganov, ‘The Kosovo War’, Russia and Euro-Asian Bulletin, vol. 8, no. 5, 1999, pp. 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Valerii Manilov, ‘Russia’s New Military Doctrine’, International Affairs, vol. 46, no. 4, 2000, p. 108.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Leonid Ivashov’s ‘Russia’s Geopolitical Horizons’, International Affairs, vol. 53, no. 4, 2007, p. 80, and ‘Voina mezhdu SshA i Kitaem vyzrevaet v Rossii’, Russkii Zhurnal, Nov–Dec 2007, http://www.ivashov.ru/Arhive/26.html (accessed April 2008). Ivashov is currently president of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems, a think tank close to the military establishment.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Elizabeth Wishnick, ‘One Asia Policy or Two?’, NBR Analysis, vol. 13, no. 1, 2002, pp. 47–8.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Blank, ‘The Dynamics of Russian Weapon Sales to China’, pp. 15–16; and Iurii Galenovich, Moskva-Pekin: Moskva-Taibei (Moscow: Izografus, 2002), p. 398.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Lt. Gen. V. I. Ostankov, ‘Geopolitical Problems and Possible Solutions in the Context of RF Security’, Military Thought, vol. 14, no. 1, 2005, pp. 28–9.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Margelov, ‘Russian-Chinese Relations’, International Affairs, vol. 49, no. 6, 2003, pp. 90–1.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Iakov Berger, ‘China’s Rise to Eminence’, International Affairs, vol.51, no.6, 2005, pp. 30–1.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Sergei Karaganov, ‘New Contours of the World Order’, Russia in Global Affairs, vol. 3, no. 4, 2005, pp. 18, 22.

    Google Scholar 

  41. In a government survey of 210 Russian foreign policy experts, two-thirds supported alliance with India and China against the US. Vladimir Shlapentokh, ‘Is the “Greatness Syndrome” Eroding?’, The Washington Quarterly, vol. 25, no. 1, 2002, p. 136. For example, Sergei Luzianin, ‘Perspektivy Politicheskog “Treugol’nika”’, Nezavisimaia Gazeta, 21 November 2001; Mikhail Titarenko, ‘Russian-Chinese-Indian Cooperation in the Face of Globalisation Challenges’, Far Eastern Affairs, no. 6, 2001, pp. 25–31; and Viacheslav Trubnikov, ‘Troika Rossiia-Indiia-Kitai kak faktor globalizatsii’, Nezavisimaia Gazeta, 19 March 2007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Peter Ferdinand, ‘Sunset, Sunrise’, International Affairs (London), vol. 83, no. 5, 2007, p. 850; and Sergei Livishin, ‘2006: The Year of Russia in China’, Far Eastern Affairs, no. 1, 2006, p. 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Yu Bin, ‘In Search for a Normal Relationship’, The China and Eurasia Forum Quarterly, vol. 5, no. 4, 2007, pp. 71–2; Aleksei Maslov, ‘ShOS o dvykh golobakh’, Nezavisimaia Gazeta, 24 September 2007;

    Google Scholar 

  44. and Bobo Lo, Axis of Convenience (London: Chatham House, 2008), pp. 109–12.

    Google Scholar 

  45. ‘Diplomatic Panaroma for 17 July 2000’, Interfax, FBIS-SOV-2000-0717. See also Dmitrii Volodin, ‘Evoliutsiia Amerikano-Iuzhnokoreiskogo Voennogo Al’iansa’, SShA Kanada, vol. 7, no. 403, 2003, p. 31.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Valerii Manilov, ‘Ugrozy Natsional’noi Bezopasnosti Rossii’, Voennaia Mysl’, no. 1, 1996, pp. 9–10; I. Latyshev, ‘Amerikano-Iaponskoe Voennoe Sotrudnichestvo v ATR i Pozitsiia Rossii’, in A. Khazanov, et al., (eds) Problemy Bezopasnosti v Azii (Moscow: IVRAN, 2001), pp. 166–8;

    Google Scholar 

  47. and Aleksei Bogaturov, ‘Russian Security Policy in Northeast Asia’, in Tae-Hwan Kwak and Edward Olsen, (eds) The Major Powers of NEA (London: Lynne Rienner, 1996), p. 99. 152.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Mikhail Nosov, ‘Rossiia i SShA v ATR’, in Vneshnaia Politika i Bezopasnost’ Sovremennoi Rossii, vol. 3 (Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2002), pp. 333–9;

    Google Scholar 

  49. A. Shlyndov, ‘Rossiiskaia Kontseptsiia Sistemy Bezopasnosti v ATR’, in V. Pavliatenko and I. Tsvetova (eds) Aktual’nye Problemy Sovremennoi Iaponii (Moscow: IDVRAN, 2001), pp. 52–3;

    Google Scholar 

  50. Viktor Pavliatenko and N. Dmitrievskaia (eds) Iaponiia (Moscow: IDVRAN, 2003), pp. 178–9;

    Google Scholar 

  51. Konstantin Sarkisov, ‘The Northern Territories Issue after Yeltsin’s Re-election’, Communist and Post-Communist Studies, vol. 30, no. 4, 1997, p. 361; and author’s interviews with a Japanologist and a senior MID official, Moscow, November 2005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Natalia Narochnitskaia, ‘Russians Want Back What Was Taken From Them’, International Affairs, vol. 51, no. 3, 2005, p. 180;

    Google Scholar 

  53. and G. Agafonov, et al., Situatsiia v ATR i Morskaia Politika Rossii na Tikhookeanskom Napravlenii (Moscow: IDV, 2005), pp. 52–5.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Viktor Pavliatenko’s ‘Russian security in the APR’, in Gilbert Rozman, et al., (eds) Russia and East Asia (London: M. E. Sharpe, 1999), p. 18, ‘US Policy in East Asia’, Far Eastern Affairs, no. 4, 2002, p. 7; and author’s interview, November 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Aleksandr Ignatov, ‘Russia in the Asia-Pacific’, in Rouben Azizian and Boris Reznik (eds) Russia, America, and Security in the Asia Pacific (Honolulu: APCSS & FENU, 2007), p. 9.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Valerii Denisov, ‘Korean Reconciliation and Russia’s Interests’, International Affairs, vol. 48, no. 2, 2002, pp. 42–3;

    Google Scholar 

  57. Vadim Tkachenko, ‘A Russian View on Korean Security after the North-South Korea Summit’, Korean Journal of Defence Analysis, vol. 12, no. 2, 2000 pp. 27–9; Aleksandr Zhebin, ‘Inter-Korean Relations: The View from Moscow’, Far Eastern Affairs, no. 1, 2003, p. 39; and author’s interview with a Russian Korea expert, Moscow, November 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Sergei Karaganov (ed.) Mir vokrug Rossii (Moscow: Kul’turnaia revoliutsiia, 2007), p. 91.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Author’s interviews with Russian diplomats, Tokyo, Moscow, March, November 2005; and Aleksei Bogaturov, ‘Russia’s Priorities in Northeast Asia’, in Richard Bush, et al., (eds) Brookings Northeast Asia Survey, 2003–2004 (Washington DC: CNAPS, 2004), p. 89.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Trenin, ‘Less is More’, p. 143. See also A. Shlyndov, ‘Iapono-Kitaiskikh Otnosheniia v Politiko-Diplomaticheskoi i Voenno-Strategicheskoi Sferakh’, in V. Pavliatenko and I. Tsvetova (eds) Aktual’nye Problemy Sovremennoi Iaponii (Moscow: IDV, 2005), pp. 137–9; and Latyshev, ‘Amerikano-Iaponskoe’, p. 163.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Beijing Xinhua, 17 January 2000, FBIS-CHI-2000–0117. On Chinese views see Kori Urayama, ‘China Debates Missile Defence’, Survival, vol. 46, no. 2, 2004, pp. 123–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Author’s interviews with MID officials, October–November 2005; Igor Rogachev, ‘Uchastie Kitaia v Aziatskikh Regional’nykh Strukturakh i Interesy Rossii’, in his Rossiisko-Kitaiskie Otnosheniia (Moscow: Izvestiia, IDVRAN, 2005), pp. 93–6;

    Google Scholar 

  63. Dmitrii Zhirnov, Rossiia i Kitai (Moscow: MGIMO, 2002), pp. 205–40; and Petrovskii, Aziatsko-Tikhookeanskie Rezhimy Bezopasnosti Posle “Kholodnoi Voiny”, pp. 182–6.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Zhirnov’s Rossiia i Kitai, p. 230 and ‘Vneshnepoliticheskoe Sotrudnichestvo Rossii i Kitaia’, in Voskresenskii (ed.) Severo-Vostochnaia i Tsentral’naia Aziia, pp. 285–6; and Mikhail Panchenko, Rossiisko-Kitaiskie Otnosheniia (Moscow: Diplomaticheskii Akademii, 2005), pp. 66, 182.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Boris Rumer, ‘The Powers in Central Asia’, Survival, vol. 44, no. 3, 2002, pp. 57–68; and

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Russell Ong, ‘China’s Security Interests in Central Asia’, Central Asian Survey, vol. 24, no. 4, 2005, pp. 425–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Aleksandr Ivanov, ‘The Large Asian Quartet’, International Affairs, vol. 44, no. 6, 1998, p. 197.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Evgenii Afanasiev, ‘Vladimir Putin’s New Foreign Policy and Russian Views of the Situation on the Korean Peninsula’, Korean Journal of Defence Analysis, vol. 12, no. 2, 2000, p. 10.

    Google Scholar 

  69. For non-Russian views on a Concert of Powers in Asia see Amitav Acharya, ‘A Concert of Asia?’, Survival, vol. 41, no. 3, 1999, pp. 84–101;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Susan Shirk, ‘Asia-Pacific Regional Security’ in David Lake and Patrick Morgan, (eds) Regional Orders (PA: Pennsylvania University Press, 1997), pp. 245–70; and Nicholas Khoo and Michael Smith, ‘A Concert of Asia?’, Policy Review, no. 108, August 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Thomas Ambrosio, Challenging America’s Global Preeminence (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005), p. 101.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Lavrov, ‘Demokratiia, Mezhdunarodnoe Upravlenie i Budushchee Miroustroistvo,’ Rossiia v Global’noi Politike, vol. 2, no. 6, 2004, pp. 8–16 (emphasis added).

    Google Scholar 

  73. On balance, Russia’s role in Asia-Pacific multilateral security has so far been generally a constructive one. See Alexander Sergounin, ‘Russia and the Prospects for Building a Multilateral Security System in the Asia-Pacific’, Pacifica Review, vol. 12, no. 2, 2000, pp. 167–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Ivanov, ‘The Large Asian Quartet’, pp. 192–3; Leonid Moiseev, ‘The Kremlin’s Eastern Policy’, International Affairs, vol. 43, no. 6, 1997, p. 32; Vladimir Fedotov, ‘K Formirovaniiu Dialogovogo Mekhanizma v ATR’, in Gosudarstva Aziatsko-Tikhookeanskogo Regiona, p. 119; Viktor Samoilenko, ‘Mnogostoronniaia diplomatiia v ATR v oblasti obespecheniia bezopasnosti i uchastie v nei Rossii’, in Bazhanov, et al., (eds) Problemy obespecheniia Bezopasnosti v ATR, p. 106; and author’s interviews with MID officials, November 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Anatolii Boliatko’s ‘Russian National Security Strategy and its Implications for East Asian Security’, in Stephen Blank, (ed.) Russian Security Policy in the APR, US Army War College, 1996, p. 21, and Dal’nii Vostok, p. 172.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Georgii Toloraia, ‘Russia’s East Asian Strategy’, Russia in Global Affairs, vol. 6, no. 1, 2008, p. 183.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Cited from Alexander Zhebin, ‘Russia and North Korea’, Asian Survey, vol. 35, no. 8, 1995, p. 739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Valentin Moiseev, ‘On the Korean Settlement’, International Affairs, vol. 43, no. 3, 1997, pp. 69–72,

    Google Scholar 

  79. Georgii Toloraia and Pavel Iakovlev, ‘How to undo the “Korean Knot”?’, International Affairs, vol. 45, no. 3, 1999, pp. 93–4.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Vladimir Li, Rossiia i Koreia v Geopolitike Evraziiskogo Vostoka (Moscow: Nauchnaia Kniga, 2000), pp. 275–81.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Georgii Toloraia, ‘Korean Peninsula and Russia’, International Affairs, vol. 49, no. 1, 2003, p. 33.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Oleg Arin, Strategicheskie Kontury Vostochnoi Azii v XXI veke, Rossiia (Moscow: Al’ians, 2001), p. 18.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Thailand, Thailand

    Paradorn Rangsimaporn (Diplomat)

Authors
  1. Paradorn Rangsimaporn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2009 Paradorn Rangsimaporn

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Rangsimaporn, P. (2009). Multipolarity and the East Asian Balance of Power. In: Russia as an Aspiring Great Power in East Asia. St Antony’s Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230244740_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation