In the hey days of the Gorbachev perestroika and glasnost, which precipitated the rapid collapse of communism, many observers rushed to celebrate the triumph of capitalism. This, some suggested, represented the end of ideological antagonism — described by others as the end of history.

In the parlance of political scientists, the international relations system underwent an epochal metamorphosis from being bipolar during much of the Cold War era, to becoming unipolar. This meant that the distribution of power was shared between the two superpowers and with the collapse of the Soviet Union, power became concentrated in the only remaining superpower: The United States.

But power and its application in the international system are temperamental concepts; they evolve at a faster pace than the learning capacity of their yielders. There is, however, one feature that remained constant through the ages — certainly since the beginning of the present international relations system with the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia. And that is what the individual states conceive and practise international relations as a constant struggle for power.

But the period - from the late 1980s to early 1990s - when the US was the only remaining superpower was to be brief. The status of supremacy was challenged by emerging poles of power from Russia to China and to the European Union — making the international relations system multi-polar. Such a system is supposed to have the advantage of making it difficult for any one power to dominate the international system and enforce its values, which may not be shared by the rest of the world. The US has a profound belief in its character as endowed by the Creator with exceptionalism. The export of its democratic values is justified by reference to its manifest destiny and historical mission.

‘Reset’ policy blamed

But regardless of its belief in its manifest destiny, the rapidly changing concept of power is subject to limitations, imposed by competing powers or by a revolutionary change of technology. The latter is illustrated in recent stories about a 20-year old Israeli hacker who managed to have access to classified Pentagon documents, or the Saudi hacker who published credit card information of clients of a major Israeli bank.

In the present crisis in Ukraine conservative American writers blamed President Barack Obama. They claimed that his ‘reset’ foreign policy toward Russia, which promoted common interests as opposed to confrontation, emboldened Russian President Vladimir Putin. They alleged that Putin was playing by the rules of realpolitik — using lies and deception to achieve maximum power — whereas Obama was playing multilateralism — placing his faith in the UN and in negotiations. Some critics stopped short of urging the president to consider a military solution to the crisis.

Nothing would be more foolish and irresponsible. Do these warmongers stop to think? Do they really belief that the president of the US would run the risk of attacking a nuclear weapon state and expose his country to endless devastation? And for what?

The reality of power has changed significantly in the nuclear age. For instance symmetrical equality is not necessary to establish an equilibrium of power between two nuclear powers. At the same time, while nuclear weapons bestow enormous defensive power of deterrence, they have imposed limitations on the conventional — weapon offensive power, for fear of escalation. And how would a military confrontation between the US and Russia take place? And how do we know who ‘won’ with major American and Russian cities reduced to rubble and all signs of civilised society replaced by a lugubrious nuclear wind evocative of prehistoric man? And how would that help Ukraine integrate with the West?

Clearly these questions cannot be answered with any degree of belief in their viability. That may explain the frustrations and the unusually aggressive tone from the American delegation at the Security Council meeting. America’s Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power said that the US and its allies “are prepared to take additional steps if Russian aggression or Russian provocations continue.’’

Power accused Russia of theft: “A thief can steal property, but that does not confer the right of ownership on the thief,” she said. Let it be noted in passing that the American delegation to the UN never uses the same irrefutable logic to describe a much more flagrant case: Israeli occupation of Palestine and colony construction in the Occupied Territories.

The Russian ambassador Vitaly Churkin lost no time in protesting: “It is simply unacceptable to listen to these insults addressed to our country.’’

Adel Safty is distinguished visiting professor and special adviser to the rector at the Siberian Academy of Public Administration, Russia. His book, Might Over Right, is endorsed by Noam Chomsky and published in England by Garnet, 2009.