This is probably the most important diplomatic development in the world since the end of the (First?) Cold War.

I suspect this is the fruit of the American drive for world domination. The three most significant great powers that are not happy with a US dominated globe are starting to co-ordinate.

This is not (yet) a military alliance, although that may come if America pushes its military advantage over the rest of the world too hard. I am sure Russia wants time to continue recovering from Communism and China and India to develop further, before the big confrontations start taking place later in this century.

What of the other two major global powers, Europe and Japan. They are more closely linked to the US than to the incipient triple alliance. No doubt a wise American leadership would do all it could to build on those ties, so it does have some allies.

I suspect Europe, which is broadly satisfied with the world as it is, would prefer to remain neutral; but it may not be able to sustain such an approach in the long run.

The future is unknowable, but on the basis of historical precedents I suspect the neocons have stirred up the formidable opponent the Military-Industrial Complex has been hoping for since the fall of the Berlin Wall. This is a vastly more significant development than the minor opposition to American hegemony in the Middle East which Bush has been relying on since 9/11.

.. it was going to happen anyway...unless ome kin dof super brilliant presdiency was elected..and maybe he only could have delayed it for half a century (nothing in human terms...) . Bush just made it faster.

It is a rahter improtat tdevelopment...it just happens a couple of decades before than expected.

US has lost Asia, he will have to concentrate now in the MIddle East and South American...and I think Bush could even lose both....which happens to demonstrate that Bush Jr (if there is no carnage in Iran) will be remembered as an awful presidnet inside the US but actually a great president in the elites outside the US (not because he wanted of course).

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

Not really breaking news: the Shanghai Cooperation Organization was created a couple of years ago by Russia and China with India now becoming a member, to serve as a counterbalance to the United States, many believe.

As Juan Cole notes:

[The SCO] will follow up on its success in getting US troops out of Uzbekistan and on strengthening energy cooperation between Kazakhstan and China on the one hand, and Russia and Kazakhstan on the other, as well as security cooperation between Russia and Uzbekistan.[...] The US hand is weak.

One of the most extensive and lasting damages of the 6 years (and counting) of the BushCheneyRumsfeld administration unilateral policies would have been to prop the creation of a plan B among those emerging world powers who have now become determined to prevent a "new American century" to happen again.

Such "counterbalance to the almighty US" alliances are also called dismissively "the Gulliver effect" by American conservatives, like Krauthammer.

Europeans think a hundred miles is a long way. Americans think a hundred years is a long time.

Thanks for the front page exposure. Since you pointed out the format problem this is a good time for me to ask my question. I have been encountering a problem in the posting editor. When the url is longer than a specific number of characters it bumps the leading <a in the html code up to the line above and I am unable to shove it back in. Any help would be appreciated.

Why big Asian three countries are cooperating? Maybe its coincidence but in all three there are currently three responsible governments not entertaining neocolonial plans toward each other and other parts of the world. Yes, there are some dark spots, as Xinjian and Tibet in China, North Eastern states and Kashmir in India, Chechnya in Russia and breakaway republics like Abkhaz, South Ossetia, Dniestr and others.
Another factor is American intrusions to the former communist countries in Central Asia, which were considered exclusively Russian backyard since tsarist times. India feels uneasy over military supplies to Musharaff's regime in Pakistan, China is enraged over support of independence for Taiwan.
Still there is some distrust between these three.
What it means for the bigger world? For the time being not much, it depend on character of foreign policy of concerned country. For Asia it's undoubtedly positive development hopefully the dawn of new era of cooperation and prosperity. For Americans it's new step in the game of power - recently Americans were forced to pay for air base in Kyrgyzstan 150 mln dollars per year instead of 1.5 mln dollars earlier. It does not mean Kyrgyzstan may be considered trusted American ally in the war on terror. Kyrgyzstan is Russian and to some extent Chinese ally and its demands to up 100-fold the rent was a stake in the game to exhaust rival bleeding his coffers, forcing him to pay every its step in this region thus impeding further developments.

European countries were pursuing strange mix of ideologized Americanised policy and realpolitik. It speaks of not high stanfards in EU over longer term plans. Ideologized policy is not sustainable in longer term. For example take two: Belarus and Ukraine. Belarus has mild authoritarian regime which is not popular in Moscow however Belarus authorities were successful in reforming their economy and sustaining high economic growth. Private liberties are not curtailed, political - yes, to some extent in similar way to East Asian countries (Singapore, Malaysia, Korea, Thailand). It's debatable whether Belarus is more authoritarian that these countries or not, however it's highly depressing when EU launch sanctions against Belarus while making deals with bloody dictatorships and ruining chances of Ukraine to be grown up. Ukraine has some chance not to be swallowed back into Russia only if the West would not meddle in Ukrainian politics seducing it petty politicians with false promises. The same way of Westernisation with impoverishment Russia experienced in early 1990s and happily escaped the West. Such way to democracy and prosperity is not sustainable. It's better if EU take a close look at Poland and Baltic states with flourishing sub Nazi culture. Poland has deep structural problems and impossibly high rate of unemployment, maybe higher than in impoverished Ukraine. Both countries may bring further political problems.

Take opposite example. You know that few days ago Mr Chavez of Venezuela has concluded highly successful three day visit to Russia. Russia invariably welcomed his bold decision to upgrade military hardware (it's Russian breakthrough into Latin American market) and invite Russian companies to his country. However Russia in my thinking has some reservations about cooperation with Venezuela. Russia wants to see it democratic and prosperous state and while his anti American rhetorics may be music for Russian hawks it's more important Mr Chavez has to succeed in his economic reforms, empowering ordinary Venezuelans.  Obviously that was not achieved during previous pro American regimes but they can return and reverse his decisions as long as he can not achieve considerable results in fighting poverty. I don't know much about Latin America but suspect understated but firm approach of Ms Bachelet has better chances to survive in long term, however in neatr future firebrand oratory of Mr Chavez will not be rivalled.

So if European Union countries in their foreign policy set empiric and not verifyable through Western media standards of democracy and human rights at first place generalizing few cases they will fall to the same trap of history where Washington was caught.    

The internal markets created by the increasing prosperity of their vast populations is attracting considerable capital investment from the US and Europe and perhaps more importantly, the gradual transfer of increasing levels of technology.

The one aspect left out is tha strong inequality of this new prosperity in China and India. Basically, those who get richer are less than a fourth of the total populations. This could lead to instability in both countries. China already has hundreds to thousands of labor and land conflicts.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.