Found over at Cryptome this geopolitical analysis of the post-Iraq world order, The World After Iraq by Robert L. Hutchings:
All this leads me to the conclusion that we are facing a more fluid and complicated set of alignments than anything we have seen since the formation of the Atlantic alliance in 1949. At a practical level, this will mean that the longstanding pattern of regular and close coordination via NATO and especially among the four key western allies – the United States, Great Britain, France, and Germany – will give way to an ad hoc “coalition of the willing” on most issues. Of course, NATO had already been receding as an instrument of American diplomacy because of the European Union’s common foreign and security policy and the growing disparity between U.S. global interests and Europe’s continental focus. But the transatlantic conflict over Iraq marks a turning point.
Now, having made a bold case, let me temper these judgments. First, the pattern of Franco-German-Russian collaboration that we saw over Iraq will be episodic, not permanent. France and Germany will continue to align themselves periodically against what they would depict as U.S. unilateralism, but it is doubtful that this united front will extend to other issues such as trade and counterterrorist cooperation.
Second, Russia’s orientation is still in flux. Having made a strategic decision to align Russian foreign policy with the United States, President Putin faces a growing backlash from Russia’s security elites. Putin navigated the diplomatic storm over Iraq rather well, but Russia’s future course is in question.
Third, China’s evenhandedness through all this was notable. From the Chinese perspective, the split among the principal Western allies was a welcome development. Although China will remain wary of U.S. global power, its leaders would prefer to avoid confrontation with the United States while they focus on domestic challenges and regional concerns.