Washington's muted reaction to Khodorkovsky's arrest is a symptom of the country's increasing indifference toward Russia. Iraq is taking up all its attention. The world is seeing an America that, after a brilliant military triumph, still cannot fulfill its political goals in that country. There is no answer being offered to the main question - how did the overthrow of Saddam Hussein affect the fight against international terrorism? Even Rumsfeld, gritting his teeth, is forced to acknowledge that the results have been mixed at best, and that America is far from winning.
But the war in Iraq has catalyzed the process of real geopolitical changes in the world. At the base of these changes is the uneasy admission - in actions, not in words - that the world today has only one superpower. The unipolar world has become more entrenched, and all reasonable countries are today attempting to rethink their own ambitions, and adjust to the situation so as to gain maximum benefit. Russia is in the same position.
The US are the bellwether of the campaign against international terrorism, which leads to a paradox - the national security of every country is inevitably related to how closely it aligns with the US, but it is that very closeness which will inevitably lead to a decrease in the independence of its foreign policy. How does one find the optimal balance between security and independence? When to oppose, when to concede? Should money or soldiers be sent to Iraq in order to help the Americans? On that last question, Russia, as we all know, has answered in the negative.
Recall that in the Persian Gulf War of 1991, Japan gave 14 billion dollars to the allied cause. But it suffered harsh criticism for pursuing a so-called "checkbook diplomacy", and for its refusal to participate in military actions. It was even excluded from the list of countries to whom Kuwait officially offered its gratitude. Japan's role in the world, and its influence on international affairs, declined. That decline and the humiliation that accompanied it, dubbed "the Japanese trauma of '91" now results in Tokyo not only contributing significant funds to Iraq, but also sending a military contingent, all in order to prove its devotion to an alliance with the US. The head of the Japanese Defense ministry recently made an unambiguous declaration that America is Japan's only ally, and the only country that can guarantee Japan's safety. American military presence in Asia is extremely important to the safety of the entire continent and the development of a friendly, trustworthy relationship between Japan and China.
The American-Chinese relations of today, unlike in 1991, are going though the warmest period in all of their history. Beijing is doing everything it can to make its policies attractive not only to the US, but also to Japan and South Korea, Washington's main allies in Asia. For the first time, Chinese exports to Japan now surpassed American exports. China has become South Korea's major trading partner, and its trade volume with the US reached almost 150 billion dollars in 2002. Beijing is extremely interested in regional safety and security, while Washington, Tokyo and Seoul are interested in Chinese economic growth. We are witnessing first hand a power shift in Asia, with China becoming achieving parity with the US and becoming its full-fledged partner on the continent - a role that Russia has been unable to play.
Unlike his colleague, Sergei Ivanov declared in a recent interview with "Moskovsky Komsomolets" that Russia and the US are not allies. "That is for certain," emphasized the defense minister. Russia is stubbornly trying to be Kipling's "cat that walked by itself". But where is it going? Europe hesitantly agrees only to limited military-technical cooperation, and the conflict over the island Tuzla has once again revealed the complete political illiteracy of both sides. In Asia, Russia's influence has shrunk to encompass a couple post-Soviet states, and an increasingly disenchanted Washington is seeing George Bush's relations with Russia as some sort of exotic idiosyncrasy.
Undoubtedly, a unipolar world is an unfair one, in which the interests of  the dominant country always take priority. But a multipolar world is fair only to the centers of power. Can today's Russia claim to be such a center? In a multipolar system, it will find itself a second- or third-tier player, and its security will inevitably diminish. The Cold War was only good for the US and the USSR, but everyone else was forced to make coerced decisions that oftentimes contradicted their national interests and ambitions.
It's clear that the Iraqi campaign had its miscalculations. American casualties are growing with each day. By denying its aid, Russia in no way increased its global authority, but revealed its indifference to problems that deeply concern the Americans. The response might be indifference to Russia's own problems. One does not have to be a geopolitical mastermind to figure out who will lose more from such an arrangement. Take another look at Kipling's story.