The Austrian Metternick, the German Bismarck, and the American Henry Kissinger come to mind as the proponents of the theory.

What the theory boils down to is that a nation or group of nations must be strong enough, often militarily, to "balance" the power of other nations.

Thus, in recent history, there were allied powers against axis powers during World War II. Then there was the US and the "free world" against the USSR emporium.

"Containment" employed diplomacy and covert acts (whatever it took short of war) to halt the spread of communism, its success proven by the collapse of the Soviet Union. The result is that the US is now the most powerful country in the world, and with George W. Bush, it can embark on a democratic crusade without being hindered too much by the United Nations.

With its economic and military dominance, and its resolve to democratize the Middle East, supported in many ways by Britain and Japan, Russia and China obviously feel that they need to maintain a balance. US and the "coalition of the unwilling" action in Iraq, its focus on Iran, North Korea, and Syria, have clearly made Russia and China uncomfortable with America’s "unprecedented power."

That the US has all the good intentions in — and for — the world is a poor basis for strategic thinking for Russia and China. It’s not just a question of ideology, economic or otherwise (capitalism, democracy, globalization, are triumphant) but the old, human uneasiness about the big boy, or bully, on the block.

Nuclear proliferation is "contained" by treaty, but not the building of economic and military strength as a "countervailing" power to the acknowledged power of the US.

The international order may have changed but distrust of singular power remains lodged in the hearts of nations.