There is no doubt that Medvedev's choice of going to China and Kazakhstan on his first overseas trip is a strong signal to the West. Embittered by the West's rejection and its non-stop lecturing and moralizing, Russia is obviously trying to find some consolation in the East, but will it find it? Yes, there were several important agreements signed, and the words pronounced by Kazakh and Chinese leaders were pleasant to the Russian president’s ear, but both of the Eastern giants are playing their own geopolitical games, and as long as the United States remains strong, they will not sacrifice their relationship with the world's only superpower just to make their northern neighbor happy.

At the same time, Russia's continuous population decline provides fertile ground for China's strategists, who think in terms of centuries, and not years, to keep casting longing glances at the nearly empty territories to their north. Kazakhstan rulers are also not very pleased when they hear some Russian politicians, even marginal ones, claiming its northern territories, heavily populated by ethnic Russians, and they also need huge U.S. investments in their economy.

From the Kremlin's point of view, the temptation to show America the middle finger is obviously very high. The end of George Bush's presidency is quickly approaching, and if he is replaced by John McCain, Moscow expects nothing but trouble ahead. Personal warm feelings between Bush and Putin helped to prevent an open confrontation despite such unpleasant issues as Kosovo, missile defense, and NATO expansion. While pushing his missionary democracy crusade, Bush also understood the importance of Russia in the global strategic configuration, and was not ready to cross the line. However, judging from McCain's foreign policy agenda, he is prepared to do just that. I do not believe all those who say that we should take McCain's rhetoric with a grain of salt, and that once he is settled in the White House, reality will force him to moderate his views. Perhaps this will happen eventually, but I am afraid that before we see it, the U.S. - Russian relationship will sink into deep and dangerous waters.

Unfortunately, the world's major power leadership’s strategic thinking is still hopelessly stuck in the geopolitical paradigms of the past century. The global challenges of the 21st century, like declining energy supplies and soaring energy prices, climate change, a food crisis, international terrorism going nuclear or biological, and natural disasters, cannot be solved by the outdated diplomacy methods and maneuvering.

The United States or Russia playing "the China card" against each other will not solve any of the above-mentioned problems. All three countries are now too interdependent in economic and security issues to keep playing the same old game. The world is now a global village, and one needs new thinking and new ideas.

I agree with those who say that the UN has become a monstrous bureaucracy, and that it has to be modernized or replaced with a more efficient structure. However, this structure is certainly not McCain's imaginary "League of Democracies," explicitly directed against Russia and China. Are we in a position to turn down their help to prevent nuclear proliferation or avert a terrorist attack, to develop new sources of energy or to reduce global warming? Can we rely in these matters only on countries with perfect records of democracy and, as the Russian literary classic Alexander Griboedov once pronounced, “Who are the judges”?

I recall a car ride through the streets of Moscow back in 1996 with another current Arizonian Vice President Dan Quayle and our follow up conversations about future U.S.–Russia relations and the world's global agenda. Whatever witty fellows might say about Quayle's spelling abilities, he is a man with the strategic vision and I wish he comes out of his exile to the front lines to promote his ideas. Quayle was thinking of forming not a prestigious discussion club like the present G-8 but the new G-7 body composed of the U.S., European Union, Russia, China, Japan, India and Brazil. This structure, with empowered global economic and security responsibilities, would be much more effective than the current U.N. Security Council. Unfortunately, we do not see any serious discussion of Quayle's concept except occasionally at the Russian Academy of Sciences.

In the meantime, there is one thing we can do right now as the first step in this direction. No one would disagree that U.S. and NATO are in big trouble in Afghanistan. Not only are the Taliban and al-Qaida getting stronger and the narcotics harvest breaking all world records, but there is constant bickering among NATO members about roles and responsibilities of each partner and no clear vision as to how to solve the mounting problems in this part of the world.

So, why don't we try to form an alliance between NATO and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) to tackle the Afghanistan quagmire? It is a clear case when the respective interests of all members of two organizations coincide. Wouldn't be better to build mutually beneficial ties between the two groups instead of growing antagonistic tensions between them?

At the recent mid-May World Russian Forum in the Hart Senate Office Building such a proposal was presented by this writer, but it received a very lukewarm reception from both American and Russian experts, including top political scientists and even generals. However, I am not ready to give it up and ask my critics to come out and suggest a better idea..