Search

Begin New Search Topic International Relations Political Geography Russia Content Type Journal Article Publication Year within 5 Years

1. The Monroe Doctrine as the Will and Idea of the United States of America

Author:
Boris Martynov
Publication Date:
01-2023
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
International Affairs: A Russian Journal of World Politics, Diplomacy and International Relations
Institution:
East View Information Services
Abstract:
On February 24, 2022, international relations entered a whole new stage of development affecting, albeit to varying degrees, practically all states, with no end in sight. On September 7, 2022, speaking at the Eastern Economic Forum, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that the world was experiencing “fundamental transformations.” Such transformations generally require several years to be completed. By the middle of the third decade of the 21st century, two highly important signs of a new situation have become absolutely clear: a crisis of the old institutions of global governance and the new rising and developing centers of power. At the same time, the opinion that the new is just the “well-forgotten old” is confirmed. This is especially true of the US and its policies.
Topic:
International Relations, Foreign Policy, History, Governance, Law, Psychology, Identity, and Monroe Doctrine
Political Geography:
Russia, Global Focus, and United States of America

2. The Putin Doctrine: What is it? The Russian Strategic Issue and the Enlarged National Security

Author:
Jose Alexandre Altahyde Hage
Publication Date:
03-2023
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
AUSTRAL: Brazilian Journal of Strategy International Relations
Institution:
Postgraduate Program in International Strategic Studies, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul
Abstract:
One can mention that this essay is only a contribution for an urgent issue in International Relations that is igniting debates in part of the academic community and the press in general, Russian expansionism and its conception of international security that, in our view, can be defined as enlarged national security. For Moscow, the dividing line between the international and the domestic whereas considering this issue is very thin4. This is why it is not a part of our objective to exhaust such a broad and complex topic, but to present some of its features.The period analysed in this article begins in 1991, with the demise of the Soviet Union, till January 2022, that marks the beginning of military exercises in some parts of Ukraine, namely the Donbass region, promoted by Putin ́s government. Our theoretical and methodological framework is based on classical and contemporary geopolitical literature, Halford Mackinder and Zbigniew Brzezinski, and International Relations realist thinkers such as Henry Kissinger and John Mearsheimer. Nevertheless, that does not mean that we will not be able to reference some liberal authors, such as Francis Fukuyama and Joseph Stiglitz.Apart from this Introduction, our essay is divided as such: a first part in which we propose a brief review of the concept of doctrine, as used by interstate politics and the State ́s national power principle. Following, we present an analysis of the Putin Doctrine, seen as both a result and as a drive for Moscow ́s revisionism in the face of the current geopolitical balance. In the third part, we examine some passages of the 1990s and of this emerging system, as an era of globalization, liberalization and “shock therapy” that disturbed the Russian quantum. Last, but not least, in our Final Thoughts some reflections will be brought.
Topic:
International Relations, Security, Military Strategy, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
Russia and Europe

3. Beyond Arms and Ammunition: China, Russia and the Iran Back Channel

Author:
Sine Ozkarasahin
Publication Date:
03-2023
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
China Brief
Institution:
The Jamestown Foundation
Abstract:
Along with Iran’s increasing involvement in supplying Russia’s war effort against Ukraine, a potential increase in Chinese support for Russia presents a challenge for both Kyiv and NATO (Eurasia Daily Monitor, March 6). Indeed, Western governments have recently expressed alarm over China’s potential provision of dual-use or military equipment to Russia (U.S. Department of Defense, February 28). According to U.S. intelligence, Chinese arms transfers to Russia would probably take the form of artillery and drones (Straits Times, February 26). As both items are badly needed by Russia to sustain its war efforts, the entry of Chinese arms on the Ukrainian battlefield may drastically shift the balance of power in the ongoing conflict. However, in addition to trackable military aid packages, Chinese assistance is manifesting itself more subtly in ways that are often overlooked. Consequently, a forthcoming Chinese aid package to Russia is likely to take several forms.
Topic:
International Relations, Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Arms Trade, and Investment
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Iran, Eurasia, Middle East, and Asia

4. Estados Unidos y África. Historia de una no-política

Author:
Pablo Rey-García and Pedro Rivas Nieto
Publication Date:
10-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Revista UNISCI/UNISCI Journal
Institution:
Unidad de investigación sobre seguridad y cooperación (UNISCI)
Abstract:
En este artículo se estudian las relaciones entre Estados Unidos y África, desde los puntos de vista económico, político y de seguridad. Son, estos tres campos, interdependientes, pero a la vez enormemente dinámicos, tanto por la inercia política estadounidense, como por los condicionantes propios de África (déficit en desarrollo, pobreza, inseguridad o inestabilidad política) como por el contexto internacional. En este último aspecto, cobra especial relevancia la invasión rusa de Ucrania o la emergencia de la ambición militar China, pues ambos países compiten con Estados Unidos por tener una mejor posición en el continente africano.
Topic:
International Relations, Development, Economics, National Security, and Terrorism
Political Geography:
Africa, Russia, China, Asia, North America, Sahel, United States of America, and Horn of Africa

5. La contribución de España a la OTAN: el Flanco Este y sus relaciones con Rusia

Author:
Mateo Moreno Barahona and Alberto Priego
Publication Date:
06-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on International Security Studies (RESI)
Institution:
International Security Studies Group (GESI) at the University of Granada
Abstract:
España se integra en la OTAN, en 1982. Sin embargo, debido a diferentes cuestiones, España ha mantenido una relación privilegiada con Rusia y no siempre ha seguido la línea marcada por la OTAN. Este artículo ofrece un caso de estudio sobre en qué medida la política exterior de España ha convergido o no con la de la OTAN en relación con el Flanco Este.
Topic:
International Relations, Foreign Policy, and NATO
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, and Spain

6. Towards Sustainable Peace and Cooperation

Author:
Farid Shafiyev
Publication Date:
06-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Caucasus Strategic Perspectives
Institution:
Center of Analysis of International Relations (AIR Center)
Abstract:
The current issue of the Caucasus Strategic Perspectives (CSP) journal entitled “Towards Sustainable Peace and Cooperation” is dedicated to the challenges and opportunities emerging in the South Caucasus region 2 years after the end of the 44-day war between Armenia and Azerbaijan in 2020 with focus on security and political matters.
Topic:
International Relations, Security, Foreign Policy, International Cooperation, International Law, Treaties and Agreements, Peacekeeping, Military Affairs, Conflict, Vladimir Putin, Landmines, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Russia, Turkey, Caucasus, Armenia, and Azerbaijan

7. Opciones estratégicas de Rusia desde la óptica del neorrealismo ofensivo

Author:
José Gonzálvez Vallés
Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on International Security Studies (RESI)
Institution:
International Security Studies Group (GESI) at the University of Granada
Abstract:
El neorrealismo nos da claves de cómo los Estados -actor principal de las relaciones internacionales-, interactúan entre sí, y, siendo su principal misión la propia supervivencia, desarrolla unas estrategias específicas para asegurarla, las razones de escoger entre ellas, y las acciones que aseguran el objetivo final.Será en este marco teórico en el que se intentará revisitar la relación especial entre Rusia y China. Una vez socios ideológicos, otra adversarios como cabezas de las dos más grandes estructuras de poder bajo el paraguas del socialismo, y en la actualidad, parece que potencias cada vez más cercanas en su común aversión al poderío norteamericano. Y sin embargo....Este trabajo trata de identificar las opciones estratégicas de Rusia, enmarcadas en el paradigma de la escuela realista.
Topic:
International Relations, Ideology, and Neorealism
Political Geography:
Russia, China, and Asia

8. Ukraine’s European Integration: The Russian Factor

Author:
Hanna Pashkova and Halyna Balanovych
Publication Date:
06-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
National Security and Defence
Institution:
Razumkov Centre
Abstract:
The pace and effectiveness of Kyiv’s European integration course depends on many internal and external factors. The key ones being the political will of Ukrainian government, ability to implement and dedication to real pro-European changes in the country that would be tangible for Ukrainian citizens. This is the internal factor that is the main issue on the path to integration into the European community. That being said, European integration is a two-way street. The quality and level of Kyiv-Brussels relations to a great extent depend on the position and engagement of the European side, including EU’s internal processes and trends, which are rather complex, controversial and sometimes centrifugal in their nature at the moment. We are talking about an increased sentiment of restoring partnerships with Russia in the “business as usual” format inside the EU’s business and political circles. Russian hybrid aggression is a dangerous factor. For the Russian leadership that views post-Soviet countries as its zone of “privileged” interest, an independent Ukraine headed towards Europe and NATO is both a challenge and a threat. Firstly, Kyiv’s successful European integration is an incentive for other post-Soviet countries to step up, which means a failure for Russia’s plans of “forced” reintegration of Eurasian countries. Secondly, Kyiv achieving success in its European project is a model for Russian citizens and a convincing evidence of the inability of Russia’s authoritarian regime to offer an attractive democratic model of social development. This is why the Russian regime is using all of its available “hybrid warfare” to prevent Ukraine from integrating into Europe – from political and diplomatic pressure, economic blockade, information warfare to military intervention – occupation of Crimea and Donbas. Currently, Ukraine is a training ground and a testing area for Russia’s massive purposeful expansion into the EU territory. In particular, this includes discrediting the unifying European values and institutions, disorienting public opinion, interfering with elections, formation of pro-Russian lobby within the European establishment, support of radical movements, etc. The goal of this influence is to disintegrate the EU, reform Europe’s political system in line with the Russian scenario. An important factor is the EU member states’, institutions’ and other countries’ assistance and solidarity with Ukraine, as well as sanctions introduced by the West. Regrettably, over the period of almost six years, the sanctions have failed to stop Russia’s war against Ukraine, failed to change the nature of Kremlin’s aggressive foreign policy. Yet it is certainly crucial that the EU and other countries uphold a common course of conduct in regard to Russia, maintain and strengthen the “sanctions frontline”. At the same time, assessing the current confrontation in the notional Ukraine-EU-Russia “triangle”, it is worth noting that these problems have been temporarily overshadowed by the global COVID-19 pandemic. On the one hand, the pandemic has affected internal and external priorities of different countries, has shaken the global economy. On the other – it has “hit the pause button” for Ukraine’s European integration, made adjustments to EU-Ukraine Association Agreement implementation plans. Obviously, the problems that have been temporarily postponed will later resurface again – this time in the new circumstances and in the new form.
Topic:
International Relations, European Union, Conflict, Regional Integration, and Integration
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, and Ukraine

9. The Logic of Geopolitics in American-Russian Relations

Author:
Allen C. Lynch
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Warsaw East European Review (WEER)
Institution:
Centre for East European Studies, University of Warsaw
Abstract:
One of Zbigniew Brzezinski’s first requests as President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor in 1977 was to ask the Pentagon for its plans – including targets – for nuclear war against “Russia”. Brzezinski was outraged when he was presented with the plan for nuclear war against the Soviet Union. He could not believe that the U.S. military had no plans to spe- cifically weaken the Russian core of the Soviet empire. For the Pentagon planners, Russia and the Soviet Union were one and the same.1 I begin with this anecdote because it reflects well an enduring geopolitical logic to American-Russian relations: American policy toward Russia, whether it be in the Tsarist, Soviet, or post-Soviet period, has not been based on opposing a strong Russian state per se. (That state married to communist ideology was something else altogether.) In the after- math of the Russian Civil War, for instance, the United States delayed recognition of Baltic independence until 1922, two years after Soviet Russia had recognized the independence of Estonia in the Treaty of Tartu, on the grounds that Polish and Finnish independence apart nothing should be done to call into question the territorial continuity of the Russian Em- pire.2 Indeed, American officials seldom viewed the Soviet Union as an empire, as the Pen- tagon war plans just cited illustrate. Historically, the logic of geopolitics i.e., the influence of organization in space on international political relationships has often tended to frame American-Russian relations in terms of complementarities of interest. Of course, geopolitics is not the only logic in AmericanRussian relations; ideology, domestic politics, as well as vested institutional interests all play their role in varying degrees under varying circum- stances. But historically, insofar as geopolitical factors have prevailed, American-Russian relations have generally been harmonious, if also remote and indirect in nature. (By indirect I mean that each sees the other mainly in terms of other powers or processes, e.g., the state of the balance of power in Europe and/or Northeast Asia.) Let us recall that Russia, whether it be under Imperial, Soviet, or post-Soviet auspices, is an essentially continental Eurasian power. Its primary state interest for centuries has been to build and consolidate a trans-continental, multi-national and imperial state while also man- aging international power politics with a series of powerful adversaries throughout Asia and Europe. Above all, Russia sought to ensure that no powerful coalition of external (and in Eu- rope technologically superior) powers could unite to challenge the Russian Empire’s territorial or political integrity. Russian diplomats and rulers thus learned to play the European balance of power with considerable finesse (e.g., the Treaty of Nystadt, 1721, under Peter the Great; the Congress of Vienna, 1815, under Alexander I; the Treaty of Rapallo between Soviet Russia and Weimar Germany, 1922; the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact, 1939; the Grand Alliance with the United States and Great Britain, 1941–45; and the Helsinki Final Act, 1975, to name just a few instances). As with Great Britain, maintaining a favorable European balance of power has been central to Russian statecraft.3 The United States, by contrast, is functionally an insular power (albeit on a continental scale) with respect to the rest of the world, surrounded as it is by two great oceans and militarily weak and isolated neighbors (i.e., Canada and Mexico). America’s primary foreign policy concern throughout most of its history has thus been, like Russia’s, to prevent the emergence of a hostile European hegemon that could threaten the country’s expansion in North America and its own hegemony in the Western Hemisphere. Once the United States had stabilized its independence from Britain after the War of 1812, U.S. and British geopo- litical interests tended to coincide.4 In this context, American and Russian interests have more often been complementary than antagonistic. It has been primarily the intrusion of ideological elements, reflecting for example Americans’ global democratic aspirations or the Soviet Union’s ultimate objec- tive of the triumph of communism worldwide, that have rendered the bilateral relationship intransigent and even dangerous.5
Topic:
International Relations, Cold War, Diplomacy, Bilateral Relations, Hegemony, Post Cold War, and Rivalry
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Soviet Union, North America, and United States of America

10. Russian information offensive in the international relations

Author:
Ryszard Szpyra
Publication Date:
09-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Security and Defence Quarterly
Institution:
War Studies University
Abstract:
The information war is beginning to play a dominant role in international relations. It is important because it occurs intensively in peacetime and determines the results of international clashes. This article aims to identify offensive elements in Russian theoretical and doctrinal views on the role and content of the information offensive in international relations. To meet this aim, a comparative analysis of research studies, documents and official statements was carried out. The study sets out to investigate how Russia assesses the usefulness of the information offensive for conducting international policy. The study revealed that the information war and information warfare in modern conditions in the Russian scientific debate occupy a prominent place. Regardless of the declared defensive nature of the Russian information offensive, both the scientific and doctrinal views emphasise the value of the information offensive for conducting international policy. Russia takes the information offensive in international relations very seriously and treats it as one of the main forms of international confrontation. This has serious consequences for countries close to Russia as it creates a new threat to their national security in peacetime
Topic:
International Relations, National Security, Disinformation, and Information Warfare
Political Geography:
Russia