THE IMPACT OF ‘TRUMP’S STRATEGY’ ON REGIONS (2019)

(published on 24 May 2019)

The study demonstrates that the ‘Trump doctrine’ is implemented at the regional level as a unified model of conflict management through regional coalitions, regardless of the region’s specific characteristics.

The key mechanism is repeated in all regions:

1. Identification of a threat (terrorism, Iran, China, specific regimes);

2. Identification of a “central destabilising force”;

3. Formation of a circle of allies;

4. Formation of a regional coalition;

5. Economic and sanctions pressure on the opponent;

6. Transfer of operational command to the coalition whilst maintaining US control “from above”.

This means that the US is shifting to a model of: not direct intervention → but remote control via allies.

The second key element is the US’s role as a “supra-systemic arbiter”:

• The US does not become directly involved in the conflict;

• creating conditions where regional players are forced to balance against one another;

• retain the ability to intervene through sanctions, economic measures or military force.

The third level is the economisation of geopolitics:

• economic projects (energy, logistics) are integrated into the security architecture;

• sanctions become a global tool (without the need for the UN);

• competition with China is shifting to the regions (particularly Africa).

The fourth level — global connectivity of regions: the US does not operate in isolation in each region, but rather:

• seeks to identify where its opponent’s interests intersect across different regions;

• exerts pressure simultaneously at several points;

• creating a systemic weakening of the opponent.

The fifth level — Ukraine’s position:

• Ukraine is not an ally, but merely a partner;

• is used as a deterrent against the Russian Federation;

• has low “asset liquidity” in US logic;

• risks remaining an instrument rather than an actor.

Conclusion: The US implements a model of global governance through
a network of regional coalitions under its own strategic control,
where it acts not as a participant, but as the architect and arbiter of processes.

Key logic: “to govern regions through allies, not through its own presence”. This allows the US to:

• reduce costs;

• avoid direct involvement in conflicts;

• influence several regions simultaneously;

• systematically weaken opponents (Russia, China, Iran).

Strategically:

• China — is being economically squeezed out;

• Iran — is being neutralised through coalitions;

• Russia — is being contained as a regional factor.

For Ukraine, this poses a critical challenge: without transitioning from the status of a ‘passive asset’ to an active participant in regional coalitions, it:

• will not increase its value;

• will not move into the category of “ally”;

• remain a pawn in a larger game.

Key systemic conclusion: contemporary US geopolitics is about managing not territories, but structures of interaction (coalitions), and a state’s place in the system is determined not by its location, but by its utility within this architecture.

More on this below.

The current regional development strategy

(Declaration/Implementation):
• The Middle East.
• Africa.
• South and Central Asia.
• Indo-Pacific region.
• Western Hemisphere.

The main objective of the US regional strategy is to establish and support ‘regional coalitions’ — from ‘world policeman’ to ‘world arbiter’:

• The essence of the strategy.
• Supporting a regional coalition (diagram),
• What conclusions can be drawn from Trump’s doctrine in the context of Ukraine’s interests.

The absence of a clear regional strategy in the document indicates that the changes taking place are large-scale and are being adjusted as events unfold on the ground.

The Middle East.

Declaration.

One of the main themes of the foreign policy doctrine is ‘jihadist terror’ as the primary cause of instability in the Middle East. ‘Israel is not the cause of Middle East problems,’ states the document setting out US official policy.

Document: For generations, the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians was seen as the main obstacle to peace and prosperity in the Middle East. Now, jihadist terror and the Iranian threat have led to the realisation that Israel is not the source of the region’s problems. Various countries have developed shared interests with Israel in combating common threats.

The document states that the US remains committed to a ‘comprehensive peace agreement’ that is acceptable to both sides – Israel and the Palestinian Arabs.

Trump advocates expanding cooperation between Israel and the oil monarchies of the Persian Gulf to counter Iranian expansionism. The US views Saudi Arabia and Israel as key pillars for implementing its regional agenda.

Document: We will encourage states in the region, in particular Egypt and Saudi Arabia, to continue modernising their economies. We will act as a catalyst for positive change by engaging in economic activity, providing support to reformers and promoting reforms, and the benefits of open markets and societies.

In the Middle East, the US intends to strengthen its ‘long-term strategic partnership with Iraq as an independent state, seeks to bring an end to the civil war in Syria to enable refugees to return home and start a new life in safety, and to work with our partners to prevent the Iranian nuclear threat’.

The US notes that its main objectives are to strengthen cooperation with the Gulf states.

Trump’s security strategy is more focused on threats, which is why Iran is the central adversary in the document. The document lists “Iran’s malign activities” in the region, as it expands its influence in Iraq and Syria using proxy groups such as Hezbollah, which has fought in support of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government. The US pledges to “work with partners to counter Iran’s malign influence”.

The document states: “Iran is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, which has exploited instability to expand its influence through partners and proxies, arms proliferation and funding. It continues to develop more powerful ballistic missiles and intelligence capabilities, and engages in malicious cyber activities.”

For the US, Iran is the main destabilising force in the region.

Implementation.

Announcement of the withdrawal of US forces from Syria (17 December 2018) America has achieved interim goals in shaping a new strategy: the US has firmly stated that it expects Russia to fulfil its obligations regarding Syria under the previously adopted UN Security Council resolution, under threat of additional sanctions from the US. The US side has also announced that it will continue to seek a resolution to the Syrian crisis through peaceful and diplomatic means. The process is now nearing the completion of the stage involving the establishment of a constitutional committee.

The essence of the new US strategy in Syria: to move beyond the role of a regional player. The main contradictions and complications among the other ‘regional’ players — Russia, Syria, Iran and Turkey — have intensified as they pursue their own objectives, which has neutralised their potential negative or aggressive actions within the framework of previous agreements.

With the announced withdrawal from Syria, the US declared that it had chosen a more advantageous strategic position – Iraq – in an attempt to strengthen its influence there. During this period, the Americans also continued negotiations on the creation of the ‘Middle East Strategic Alliance’ (MESA) – an ‘Arab NATO’ led by Saudi Arabia, as an anti-Iranian coalition involving Israel.

By the end of 2025, Israel plans to build the EastMed gas pipeline to Europe with a capacity of 20 billion cubic metres per year. American businesses are actively involved in the extraction of Israeli gas. The gas pipeline route will run exclusively through EU member states: Cyprus, Crete, Greece and Italy. When planning the route, Israel bypassed Turkish territory. In the future, the US may organise supplies to Europe from Arab countries via the Israeli pipeline.

The US has also announced a ‘deal of the century’ to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is reportedly already under consideration by the UN, though its details are being kept strictly under wraps. Judging by all accounts, it can be assumed that the recent signing of the declaration recognising Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights, which has not found support in the international community, marks the start of substantive negotiations in this direction.

Furthermore, as a result of all US actions, regional countries with an anti-Iranian stance are beginning to exert increasing influence over Syria.

As for the measures against Iran, they are gradually being tightened. The US announced the introduction of new sanctions against the country in May, whilst the EU’s INSTEX mechanism, designed to circumvent sanctions for Iran, has in fact turned out to be a mechanism for barter deals, which is entirely unsatisfactory to Iran itself. Thanks to US sanctions and diplomatic efforts, Iran’s oil sales volumes are falling significantly.

Strategy in action: identifying the terrorist threat, identifying the central destabilising force in the region, developing bilateral relations, distinguishing between ‘allies’ and ‘partners’, inviting ‘allies’ to join regional coalitions, and establishing joint economic projects with ‘allies’.

Africa.

Declaration.

The Strategy notes that Africa is a potential new market for US goods and services, for which demand is high and is likely to grow due to the desire of many countries to implement their political and economic models. The US will offer American goods and services that are highly beneficial to African countries; furthermore, they will serve as an alternative to China’s economic activities, which often leave a significant mark on the continent.

The document also emphasises that a number of Chinese strategies undermine Africa’s long-term development by undermining the foundations of the elites and dominant extractive industries, and plunging countries into unstable and opaque debts and obligations.

The US is capable of making a ‘push’ into Africa in the security sphere in ‘partnership’ with governments, civil society and regional organisations to ‘put an end to protracted conflicts’, which involves the use of regional coalition strategies, an area in which America has far more experience than China.

The US states that it will work with countries seeking to move from simply ‘receiving’ donor aid to full-fledged partnerships that promote prosperity.

Drawing on counter-terrorism concepts, which are present to a greater or lesser extent across the whole of Africa, the US will seek to use its military advantages to stabilise these states in exchange for them distancing themselves from China and/or concluding favourable trade agreements with the US.

Document:

• Corruption and weak governance threaten to undermine the political benefits expected to arise from new economic opportunities.

• Many African states are on the front line of violent extremism and jihadist terrorists, including ISIS, Al-Qaeda and their affiliates on the continent.

• African countries and regional organisations have demonstrated a willingness to counter this threat from jihadist terrorist organisations, but their security capabilities remain weak.

The central destabilising force in the region is the terrorist threat in its various forms, the weak state structures of these countries due to corruption, and the strong influence of China and Russia – particularly economic and military – which supports this state of affairs.

Implementation.

US interest in the African continent is primarily linked to the Arab countries of Africa, given America’s interests in the Middle East and the need to counter the regional threat posed by Iran. Countries with access to the sea (or ocean) are of particular interest, as they simplify logistics costs, both military and economic, and allow the navies of these countries to be integrated into regional defence alliances.

List of Arab countries in Africa: Algeria, Djibouti, Egypt, Western Sahara, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Comoros, Somalia, Tunisia, Sudan.

The US has announced that one of the key elements of the strategy will be a shift towards targeted aid to African countries and improving the effectiveness of such aid, whilst eliminating inefficient expenditure. Furthermore, the US will no longer support ineffective UN peacekeeping missions and will not provide ‘indiscriminate aid’ to African countries without taking into account priorities. The Americans also reiterate that they are forming an anti-Iranian coalition within the UN and invite African countries to join it.

Strategy in practice: identifying the terrorist threat, identifying the central destabilising force in the region, developing bilateral relations, dividing countries into ‘allies’ and ‘partners’, and inviting ‘allies’ to join regional coalitions.

South and Central Asia.

Declaration.

US interests in the region include countering terrorist threats that affect US security.

The region is described as home to over a quarter of the world’s population, housing a fifth of all terrorist groups on the US list, and as a region with rapidly growing economies. The region is home to two nuclear powers — Pakistan and India. There is a distinct prospect of an Indo-Pakistani military conflict, which could lead to an exchange of nuclear strikes, causing serious concern and requiring sustained diplomatic negotiations.

Washington views India as a partner in containing China. A strategic partnership with India will preserve its leading role in ensuring security in the Indian Ocean and the wider region.

Pakistan, meanwhile, is being offered closer cooperation in the fight against terrorism in the region and the development of cooperation within the UN. In return, the development of trade and investment ties is proposed as security levels improve.

Regarding Afghanistan, the US commits to providing support to the Afghan government and security forces in their war against the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, ISIL and other terrorists. The US will maintain the combat capability of Afghan security forces to convince the Taliban that they cannot win.

Document: We would like to see a Pakistan that… is not involved in destabilising behaviour and is stable; and a self-sufficient Afghanistan. And we are looking for central, stable Asian states that do not wish to become havens for jihadists and prioritise reform.

The main destabilising factors in the region are the unresolved Afghan conflict, as well as the protracted, smouldering Indo-Pakistani conflict.

Implementation.

The US seeks to use the terrorist threat to the region as a pretext for reviving the military partnerships it once had with Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, to the extent that it will once again station its troops on their territory. The real motivation is likely to be to increase their ‘resilience to the dominance of rival countries’.

There have been reports that the US is negotiating with the radical Taliban movement regarding the possibility of withdrawing American troops from Afghanistan in exchange for guarantees from the Taliban that they will not provide sanctuary to terrorist groups in the territory under their control and will enter into dialogue with the Afghan government.

It has previously been noted that a regional coalition is forming around Pakistan, as indicated by signals from earlier periods: the West as a whole is banking on Pakistan’s more active participation in the negotiation process. In October 2018, Pakistan also released one of the founders of the radical Taliban movement, Abdul Ghani Baradar (also known as ‘Mullah Baradar’), after which he headed the Taliban’s political office in Qatar and negotiations regarding Afghanistan began to take on a more concrete form. The Afghan government is also prepared to enter into negotiations with Pakistan if the Taliban wishes to see them act as a mediator.

However, Pakistan is embroiled in a regional conflict with India: India and Pakistan are in dispute over the ownership of Kashmir, where there is no state border — it is replaced by a line of control that has no legal force. Recently, this conflict has escalated significantly due to provocations; it can be assumed that this occurred not without the assistance of third parties with no interest in stabilising the situation in the region (primarily Iran and Russia).

The region’s economic project — the construction of the Turkmenistan–Afghanistan–Pakistan–India (TAPI) gas pipeline — is of vital importance for a peaceful settlement in Afghanistan.

Strategy in action: defining the terrorist threat, identifying the main destabilising force in the region, developing bilateral relations, distinguishing between ‘allies’ and ‘partners’, inviting ‘allies’ to join regional coalitions, and establishing joint economic projects with ‘allies’.

The Indo-Pacific region.

Declaration.

The creation of a coalition to contain China involves four-way cooperation between the US, Japan, Australia and India, with the latter again referred to as a ‘major defence partner’, whose relations, being established across the region, will be supported by the US.

North Korea is identified as a global threat requiring a global response, which entails cooperation on missile defence between the US, Japan and South Korea.

Furthermore, the US wishes to renew alliances with the Philippines and Thailand, and strengthen partnerships with Singapore, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia and other countries to help them become partners in maritime shipping.

Overall, the US plans to use ASEAN and APEC as regional institutions to advance its geopolitical and economic interests, given that the former is considering the possibility that a number of regions could become US partners in implementing a ‘regional coalitions’ strategy in an attempt to ‘contain China’, whilst the latter could conclude bilateral trade agreements.

The main destabilising forces in the region for the US are North Korea and China’s influence on the region. Despite this competition in the region, the US is actively involving China in the negotiation process with North Korea.

Implementation.

The talks between Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un concluded on 28 February 2019 in Hanoi, earlier than planned. Following the meeting, the leaders of the US and the DPRK did not sign any agreements, as the negotiations were suspended due to differences between the parties.

The main success lies in the fact that the talks are taking place at all and the parties are able to exchange conditions and views at the highest level; in other words, the situation is not deadlocked.

Western Hemisphere.

Declaration.

The Strategy emphasises US regional efforts to strengthen security and prosperity through active diplomatic engagement, as well as America’s commitment to isolating governments that refuse to act as responsible partners in promoting peace and prosperity in the Western Hemisphere.

The US also accuses China and Russia of exerting a negative influence on countries in the region, supporting regimes in Venezuela and Cuba, and expanding military ties in the region that facilitate arms trade, among other things.

Document:

• Transnational criminal organisations, including gangs and cartels, perpetuate violence and corruption and threaten the stability of Central American states, including Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador.

• Venezuela and Cuba, whose governments adhere to authoritarian socialist models, continue to oppress their people.

• China seeks to draw the region into its sphere of influence through state investment and loans.

• Russia continues its failed ‘Cold War’ policy by supporting its radical Cuban allies, whilst Cuba continues to oppress its citizens.

• Both China and Russia support the dictatorship in Venezuela and seek to expand military ties and arms trade across the region.

There is mention of forming regional coalitions to resolve contentious issues through diplomatic efforts. Threats are being made to isolate governments that refuse to act as responsible partners. Isolation is a tool used against ‘rivals’ or their allies.

For the US, the regimes in Venezuela and Cuba are the central destabilising forces in the region.

Implementation.

Since January 2019 – the moment of President Maduro’s so-called ‘inauguration’ (10 January 2019) – events surrounding Venezuela have begun to unfold according to a pattern of regional coalition-building. The US stated that Washington does not recognise the authority of President Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela and will apply all means of pressure on the country’s leadership. Trump announced the recognition of Juan Guaidó, the head of Venezuela’s opposition-controlled parliament, as the President of Venezuela, with the demand for a re-election of the country’s president on democratic principles, the result of which would be recognised by the international community.

The US has introduced a new, tough package of sanctions against Venezuela in addition to all previous ones, concerning, in particular, a ban on the purchase of oil (similar to the sanctions against Iran).  The Americans have allowed the leader of the Venezuelan opposition, Juan Guaidó, to take control of certain assets of the government and the country’s central bank held in accounts at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and other US banks, and both the US and the EU have recognised his authority regarding new appointments in the country.

Colombia is playing the most active role in supporting the Venezuelan opposition and is the most vocal opponent of Maduro’s regime in the region, cooperating with the US. The main US countermeasures during this period are to deter military or violent actions by Maduro and his allies against the opposition, as well as to conduct negotiations at the international level regarding the Venezuelan issue.

It should be noted that, from an economic perspective, a peaceful resolution of the Venezuelan issue and the removal of Maduro’s regime – followed by the lifting of all US sanctions against Venezuela – would mean an open oil market and an open market for the sale of goods and services (in contrast to the closed Iranian market).

Strategy in action: identifying the main destabilising force in the region, developing bilateral relations, distinguishing between ‘allies’ and ‘partners’, inviting ‘allies’ to join regional coalitions, and creating joint economic projects with ‘allies’.

As can be seen from the above,

factors such as the existence of a terrorist threat and ways of addressing it, the presence of a central destabilising force in the region, US economic expansion and the search for ‘allies’, the strengthening of influence over ‘partners’ through regional economic projects with ‘allies’, and the creation of regional coalitions amongst ‘allies’ to resolve conflicts and safeguard the security of the region’s territories – can be observed in one form or another in every region.

The US is laying the groundwork for advancing and consolidating its economic advantage as a ‘dominant power’ and strengthening its international influence in the world’s regions.

The US no longer imposes the ideals of Western democracy and is prepared to recognise the specific characteristics of development in each region individually. Therefore, in every region, it needs not merely ‘partners’, but specifically ‘allies’ who understand all the intricacies and peculiarities of regional relations from within, and with whom relations will be built on the basis of mutual benefit.

The US no longer has any enemies apart from terrorists, but it does recognise ‘rivals’ and ‘competitors’. This allows it to broaden the scope of its diplomatic policy and negotiate with all parties without exception anywhere in the world, offering partnership.

The main objective of US regional strategy is to create and maintain ‘regional coalitions’ to resolve regional conflicts as part of its own evolution ‘from global policeman to global arbitrator’, in a context where important decisions on the international stage of the UN are blocked by the use of the ‘veto’ by Russia and China, and where it is impossible to overcome this through negotiations.

The essence of the strategy.

The international arena is divided into regions, each with its own characteristics of social, cultural and economic development, as well as its own internal contradictions and conflicts.

Objectives:

• to identify regional leaders (‘allies’), to build regional coalitions around them,

• participate in regional processes remotely, from a distance, through ‘ally’ leaders, without direct military intervention;

• provide substantial economic support to ‘allies’ (possibly through the defence industry);

• to apply the instruments of ‘US economic sanctions’ and ‘secondary sanctions’ against opponents.

• provide advisory or managerial assistance from the centre, taking regional interests into account. For example, in economic terms, where necessary, propose or organise the replacement of economic ties or partners both locally and from other regions of the ‘ally’ coalitions. In military-political terms, offer diplomatic assistance in finding solutions to ‘frozen conflicts’ and contentious issues, and to counter and/or neutralise the influence or interference of opponents, etc.

• To guarantee ‘allies’ the containment of opponents through its powerful military component, if necessary.

This is the implementation of the ‘Trump doctrine’ strategy in terms of ‘promoting peace through strength’, but now at the regional level, using its power to support ‘allies’.

A schematic overview of the regional coalition:

Ukraine

Ukraine was mentioned more than once in the document, in the context of accusing Russia of violating international law and unleashing aggression.

Document:

• Russia is using subversive methods to undermine Europe’s trust in America, undermine transatlantic unity and weaken European unity.

• Through its invasions of Georgia and Ukraine, Russia has demonstrated a willingness to violate the sovereignty of countries in the region.

• Russia continues to intimidate its neighbours with threatening behaviour, such as nuclear threats and the further deployment of offensive forces.

What conclusions can be drawn from Trump’s doctrine in the context of Ukraine’s interests?

As a hypothesis.

The US views Russia primarily as a regional problem for Europe. In the international arena, where interests intersect, all of the Russian Federation’s ‘geopolitical manoeuvres’ are, in one way or another, controlled by the US, and these attempts are described as a ‘failed policy of prolonging the Cold War’. Unlike China, which is recognised as a ‘rival’ with whom negotiations can be held, America’s attitude towards Russia is more reminiscent of its attitude towards Iran – the periodic application of sanctions, escalating in the absence of constructive, substantive negotiations.

In other words, the path from ‘rival’ to ‘partner’ is currently completely blocked. Russia is simply being contained.

At the same time, relations between the US and the EU have become more complicated, with the US distinguishing between ‘partners’ and ‘allies’ among EU member states. Taking advantage of this situation and setting precedents, the Russian Federation is attempting to establish economic relations within the EU with US ‘partners’, leading to even greater divisions between these countries and both US ‘allies’ within the EU and the US itself.

This process is clearly illustrated by the construction of the two gas transmission systems, ‘Nord Stream 2’ and ‘TurkStream’ (with the possibility of EU countries connecting to them in the future). In this context, some countries support the US’s extremely negative stance on the implementation of the Nord Stream 2 project, whilst others are participants in it and defend it.

The US regards Ukraine as a ‘partner’ but not as an ‘ally’, due to the uncertain situation in the country — the lack of necessary reforms or their extremely slow implementation, a weak position on the international stage and within Ukraine itself, and other unpleasant problems such as corruption, etc. — and may abandon a genuine ‘partnership’ and support for our country, whilst maintaining the appearance of former relations.

Of the tangible assets we can offer within the framework of forming regional coalitions when identifying the central destabilising force in the region, we have only the gas transmission system, which is not in the best condition. As for passive assets – the very fact of the Russian Federation’s violation of international law (the annexation of Crimea, the partial occupation of part of Donbas), which the US uses to its own advantage against Russia to curb its influence in other regions where the US has interests.

This is a complex situation that has developed around the Ukrainian issue in America. In theory, being a ‘friend’ of the US should be beneficial. Yet Russia has struck twice on this principle, demonstrating that being a ‘friend’ of the US is harmful and even dangerous. By becoming ‘friends’ of the US, Georgia and Ukraine lost part of their territories and suffered significant losses. This is a signal to all other countries in the post-Soviet space, and beyond, that by entering the sphere of Russian influence, they run a high risk if they start ‘befriending’ the US.

On the other hand, our region lies more within the sphere of EU interests than that of the US. By intervening in this territory, the US is more likely to be defending the interests of its ‘allies’ rather than its own. The EU itself shows no particular interest in defending its security against Russia, believing that it is encroaching on Russia’s historically established sphere of influence and that Russia will not cross those boundaries. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why the situation surrounding the Ukrainian issue has been ‘frozen’ not only on the part of Russia, but also on the part of the US and the EU in particular.

Ukraine needs to show greater interest and activity in the regional arena, particularly in terms of strengthening its relations with its US ‘allies’ – specifically economic and political ties – if we wish to remain within America’s sphere of interest. However relations between the EU and the US may develop, America is currently uniting its ‘allies’ in the region into a coalition, and this coalition will remain important to it in the future.

Based on Trump’s doctrine and their vision of a ‘balance of power and balance of interests’, which determines the direct correlation between the cost of an issue and the benefit they ultimately receive, it is necessary to increase the liquidity of one’s own real assets and demonstrate one’s usefulness in the long term, rather than hoping to be useful merely as a passive asset in the form of a victim of aggression by the Russian Federation.

The US is currently placing emphasis on bilateral cooperation; this point should also be taken into account when building relations with both the US and its ‘allies’ in the EU.

Another striking feature of Trump’s doctrine is the particular importance attached to economic and military potential as such. Whilst we still have a long way to go from an economic perspective, the country’s military potential deserves special attention from ‘allies’. The experience of a country that has been at war for five years could prove a very valuable asset to them.

Conclusion:

It is imperative for Ukraine to focus on enhancing, at the very least, the visibility of its political, economic and military assets with future potential, and to step up its efforts to strengthen relations within the regional sphere.

[1] The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is a political, economic and cultural regional intergovernmental organisation comprising 10 countries located in Southeast Asia. The population of ASEAN member states is approximately 500 million people, and their combined GDP amounts to around 737 billion US dollars. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2_%D0%AE%D0%B3%D0%BE- %D0%92%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%90%D0%B7%D0%B8%D0%B8

[2] Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) is a forum of 21 economies in the Asia-Pacific region for cooperation in regional trade and the facilitation and liberalisation of investment. The member countries are home to around 40% of the world’s population and account for approximately 54% of global GDP and 44% of world trade https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%B7%D0%B8%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE-%D0%A2%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%B5%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D1%8D%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE