Number of results to display per page
Search Results
42. Russia's return to the superpower status
- Author:
- Mirosław Minkina
- Publication Date:
- 12-2019
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- Security and Defence Quarterly
- Institution:
- War Studies University
- Abstract:
- Objectives: The elite of Russian power and Russian society have never come to terms with the collapse of the Soviet Union. They also did not accept the world order with the primary role of the United States. The purpose of this article is to characterize the policy of the Russian Federation, which is aimed at rebuilding the superpower position of this state, and to identify the reasons that clearly define Russia’s determination in this respect. Methods: Achieving the formulated goal will be possible by answering the question: Why does Russia strive to rebuild the status of the global superpower and what actions it undertakes in its policy? This question is the main research problem, which the authors of the article have taken up. In order to solve the indicated problem, theoretical methods will be used in the form of: source and literature criticiam, analysis, synthesis and inference. Results: Nobody negates the fact that Russia is still one of the largest countries in the world. Nonetheless, it is much smaller and weaker than the USSR. By means of assertive, not to say aggressive, and anti-western politics it demands to be recognized as a superpower eligible to decide on the international order. However, in the contemporary world, the territory decides about the superpower status to a much smaller extent. Conclusions: The foundations of the Russian superpower status are weak, and the popular anti-western narrative is not conducive to strengthening the Kremlin's position internationally.
- Topic:
- Security, Foreign Policy, International Security, and Superpower
- Political Geography:
- Russia and Eurasia
43. Non-military determinants of the Russian Federation policy
- Author:
- Bogdan Grenda
- Publication Date:
- 03-2019
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- Security and Defence Quarterly
- Institution:
- War Studies University
- Abstract:
- This study analyses various non-military factors in shaping the security policy of the Russian Federation. This work undertakes to establish their substance, content and scope, and to draw the conditions and trends in the political, economic and social security of modern Russia in the context of its international ambitions, role and state security. In the work theoretical method analysis, synthesis, abstracting and generalization were used. Based on the results of the research, it was determined that the specificity of its location definitely exerts an adverse effect on Russian state security. The reconstruction of imperial Russia is among the key goals set forth by Vladimir Putin in Russia’s foreign and military policy. In fact, the entire economic, political and military activity of Russia is subordinated to this goal. With regard to the economic and social state, the dependence of the Russian Federation on the extraction and export of crude oil and natural gas is an obvious indication of the constraints of its economy. Moscow’s particular interests are formulated in official state documents, such as the Military Doctrine and the National Security Strategy. These documents identify not only external and internal threats to state security but above all indicate the means and methods of possible deterrence.
- Topic:
- Security, Natural Resources, Social Security, and Economic Security
- Political Geography:
- Russia and Eurasia
44. Hybridity – a ‘new’ method to accomplish dominance
- Author:
- Leszek Elak and Zdzislaw Sliwa
- Publication Date:
- 03-2019
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- Security and Defence Quarterly
- Institution:
- War Studies University
- Abstract:
- The term ‘hybrid warfare’ proved to be very popular among academics, military thinkers and professionals leading to a variety of definitions and approaches. It was linked with the new generation concept popularised by Russian military thought. The essence of the hybridity is not new, as using a combination of military and non-military instruments is as old as mankind and is recognised but interpreted differently. The paper examines both the concept and its implementation based on case studies and theoretical considerations. It debates possible ways of using it to confront targeted nations by a combination of a variety of tools and approaches.
- Topic:
- International Relations, Security, Hybrid Warfare, and Military
- Political Geography:
- Russia and Eurasia
45. Back to the Russia-U.S.-China “Triangle”?
- Author:
- S. Trush
- Publication Date:
- 01-2019
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- International Affairs: A Russian Journal of World Politics, Diplomacy and International Relations
- Institution:
- East View Information Services
- Abstract:
- FOr SeVeral MONThS, the world expert community has been actively discussing the obvious resurgence of the russia-the U.S.-China “triangle.” This happens every time when the key, or even “sacral,” prob- lem of international interaction – the problem of security – comes to the fore. The high level of confrontation inside two of the three sides of the “triangle” – the U.S. vs. russia and China vs. the U.S. – predetermined this resurgence against the background of donald Trump’s non-orthodox and unyielding foreign policy. he brought to the white house his “no-nonsense” approach to add more prominence to the traditional efforts of american pragmatists to keep russia and China apart. his obvious preference for Moscow and his clear intention to rely on it to oppose China were defused by an unprece- dented attack launched against him by the anti-Trump opposition inside the United States. due to the internal balance of power, russia was cho- sen as the potentially most promising target with the best foreign policy dividends perfectly suited to the task of either pushing the president out of the white house or at least, narrowing down his political leeway. This attack and the fairly painful Korean issue created a pause in the america-China relations obvious in the first year of the new administra- tion that ended late in 2017 by the “tough and realistic” description in the National Security Strategy of the United States of “revisionist powers of russia and China.... that challenge american power.” This launched an aggressive trade war with China; today, it has become abundantly clear that it is part of the exacerbated systemic confrontation with China over economic, technological and military leadership.
- Topic:
- Security, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, and Military Strategy
- Political Geography:
- Russia, China, Europe, Asia, North America, and United States of America
46. Strategic Stability in the Early 21st Century
- Author:
- A. Orlov
- Publication Date:
- 01-2019
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- International Affairs: A Russian Journal of World Politics, Diplomacy and International Relations
- Institution:
- East View Information Services
- Abstract:
- one hunDReD YeaRs ago, mankind entered the 20th century as the “golden age” of realized ideals of freedom and humanism. Reality proved to be different: this was the cruelest and the bloodiest period in the histo- ry of modern civilization. The new generation of political dreamers, with anglo-saxon roots in the first place, expected the 21st century to become a period of a more or less stable development of the world led by the united states with the help of its closest satellites. In his The Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership, Zbigniew Brzezinski (who together with henry Kissinger can be described as a “classic” of the contemporary geopoliti- cal thought) wrote that since the end of the Cold War the united states “assumed the unique global security role” and “america’s global socio- cultural celebrity makes it the world’s center of attention.”1 he arrived here at a fairly debatable (as later developments showed) conclusion that “america’s role in ensuring the security of its allies ... justifies it in seek- ing more security for itself than is predictably attainable by other states.”2 This trend of military-political thinking that dominated across the ocean in the 1990s and early 2000s has not changed in fifteen years that elapsed since the time when the maître of american political science wrote the lines quoted above. Formally a Democrat and President Jimmy Carter's national security advisor in the latter half of the 1970s, he nur- tured the ideas that differ but little from those of the present master of the White house, a conservative Republican determined to “make america great again,” that is, to restore its role of the unquestioned world leader in all trends and in all hypostases. nothing what President Trump has said so far clarifies when, in his opinion, america lost its greatness. It seems that he piles the accusations on Democrat obama whom he called a “softy” and who allegedly allowed the adversaries to push america into a tight corner from which the country is scrambling out under his guid- ance. let’s go several decades back. The end of the Cold War, the victory in which Washington arrogant- ly “appropriated” and its rise, at least in its own eyes, became a watershed of sorts in american understanding of the contemporary realities and of certain basic postulates that for a long time remained the cornerstone of the perception of the world by Washington and Moscow. This relates, first and foremost, to the strategic security concept. Brzezinski admitted: “It was until the late 1950s and perhaps not even until the Cuban Missile Crisis that america was jarred into recognition that modern technology has made vulnerable a thing of the past.”3 “The intense national debate on these issues [in the united states] eventually led to a consensus that a relationship of stable deterrence with the soviet union was attainable only through mutual restraint.”4 henry Kissinger fully agrees with the above. In his World Order, he has written: “strategic stability was defined as a balance in which neither side would use its weapons of mass destruction because the adversary was always able to inflict an unacceptable level of destruction in retalia- tion.”5 This adds special importance to what anatoly Dobrynin, soviet ambassador to the u.s., had to say in his book In Confidence: Moscow’s Ambassador to Six Cold War Presidents about his talk to Robert Mcnamara, united states secretary of Defense, in april 1967: “Mcnamara explained that u.s. nuclear doctrine was grounded in the idea that the united states should be ready to absorb a surprise nuclear- missile strike while preserving its capability to hit back and cause irreparable damage to the enemy. as far as he could understand, Mcnamara said, the soviet military doctrine was based on the same prin- ciple. he was convinced that both sides possessed such capability. It was precisely this factor that in a peculiar way provided the stability and ade- quately guaranteed that neither of the two great powers would attack the other, because each well knew that an attack on the other meant suicide.”6 Colonel-general Yury Baluyevsky, a prominent soviet and Russian military theoretician who served as Chief of the general staff of the armed Forces of the Russian Federation, has pointed out the fol- lowing: “[The] term strategic stability has been used for a fairly long time to assess the situation in the world. at first it was limited to the relations between the two superpowers – the soviet union and the united states – and described them as the mutually assured destruction of the sides and the rest of the world in a global nuclear war.... This stability is a product of nuclear arms race that resulted in the parity of strategic offensive armaments of the ussR and the u.s. and the situation of the so-called nuclear stalemate.”
- Topic:
- Security, Diplomacy, Military Strategy, and Political stability
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Europe, North America, and United States of America
47. Journal of Advanced Military Studies: Great Power Competition
- Author:
- Christopher C. Harmon, T. J. Linzy, Jack Vahram Kalpakian, Bruce I. Gudmundsson, Ryan Burke, Jahara "Franky" Matisek, Zsofia Budai, Kevin Johnston, Blagovest Tashev, Michael Purcell, David McLaughlin, Kashish Parpiani, Daniel De Wit, and Timothy Chess
- Publication Date:
- 09-2019
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- Journal of Advanced Military Studies
- Institution:
- Marine Corps University Press, National Defense University
- Abstract:
- In this issue of MCU Journal, the authors discuss various concepts of power and great power competition. For generations, scholars have debated changes in power and how that evolution could potentially impact the United States, its allies, and those hovering on the edge of greatness in whatever form that may take. The concept of power has taken on many meanings as the character of warfare has adapted to the time—hard power, soft power, sea power, airpower, space power, great power, combat power, etc. So how do we define such an abstract concept as power? The Department of Defense (DOD) defines combat power as “the total means of destructive and/or disruptive force which a military unit/formation can apply against the opponent at a given time.” Clearly, power must be projected; and for our purposes, that means an entity has the “ability . . . to apply all or some of its elements of national power—political, economic, informational, or military—to rapidly and effectively deploy and sustain forces in and from multiple dispersed locations to respond to crises, to contribute to deterrence, and to enhance regional stability.”
- Topic:
- Security, NATO, Climate Change, International Cooperation, Migration, History, Power Politics, Armed Forces, Navy, Populism, Grand Strategy, Alliance, Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), Strategic Competition, Geography, Ottoman Empire, Information Technology, and Clash of Civilizations
- Political Geography:
- Africa, Russia, China, Europe, Sudan, India, Norway, Asia, France, North America, Egypt, Arctic, United States of America, and Antarctica
48. The Domestic Politics of Nuclear Choices
- Author:
- Elizabeth N. Saunders
- Publication Date:
- 10-2019
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- International Security
- Institution:
- Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University
- Abstract:
- When and how do domestic politics influence a state's nuclear choices? Recent scholarship on nuclear security develops many domestic-political explanations for different nuclear decisions. These explanations are partly the result of two welcome trends: first, scholars have expanded the nuclear timeline, examining state behavior before and after nuclear proliferation; and second, scholars have moved beyond blunt distinctions between democracies and autocracies to more fine-grained understandings of domestic constraints. But without linkages between them, new domestic-political findings could be dismissed as a laundry list of factors that do not explain significant variation in nuclear decisions. This review essay assesses recent research on domestic politics and nuclear security, and develops a framework that illuminates when and how domestic-political mechanisms are likely to affect nuclear choices. In contrast to most previous domestic arguments, many of the newer domestic-political mechanisms posited in the literature are in some way top-down; that is, they show leaders deliberately maintaining or loosening control over nuclear choices. Two dimensions govern the extent and nature of domestic-political influence on nuclear choices: the degree of threat uncertainty and the costs and benefits to leaders of expanding the circle of domestic actors involved in a nuclear decision. The framework developed in this review essay helps make sense of several cases explored in the recent nuclear security literature. It also has implications for understanding when and how domestic-political arguments might diverge from the predictions of security-based analyses.
- Topic:
- Security, Arms Control and Proliferation, Nuclear Weapons, Treaties and Agreements, International Security, Domestic Politics, and Nonproliferation
- Political Geography:
- Russia, United States, China, Iran, and North Korea
49. Winter 2018 edition of Contemporary Eurasia
- Author:
- Ruben Safrastyan
- Publication Date:
- 01-2019
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- Contemporary Eurasia
- Institution:
- Institute of Oriental Studies, National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia
- Abstract:
- SECURITY ISSUES IN EURASIA ARTSRUN HOVHANNISYAN ASIA-PACIFIC THEATER IN FOCUS: COMPARISON OF WEAPONS SYSTEMS OF NEAR-PEER COMPETITORS, CURRENT ISSUES ...........4 TINA KHARATYAN THE MILITARY DOCTRINE OF AZERBAIJAN: ASSESSING THE IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS AND POLICY IMPLICATION ...............21 HRANUSH DERMOYAN THE 2016 COUP ATTEMPT IN TURKEY: A RESULT OF CHANGING CIVIL-MILITARY BALANCE IN TURKEY .........................41 LIANA HAYRAPETYAN RADICAL ISLAM IN RUSSIA: THE CASE OF TATARSTAN ..................61 THE ARAB WORLD IN TRANSITION ARAKS PASHAYAN SAUDI ARABIA-QATAR. FROM COOPERATION TO CONFRONTATION ................................................................................80 GOR GEVORGYAN THE NEW STRATEGY OF THE U. S. MIDDLE EAST POLICY AND EGYPT ..................................................................................90 MUSHEGH GHAHRIYAN THE KURDISH FACTOR IN IRAQ-GULF ARAB STATES RELATIONS .....................................................................100 SOUTH CAUCASUS: REGIONAL CONFLICTS AND CHALLENGES LILIT GALSTYAN RUSSIA AND THE NAGORNO-KARABAKH CONFLICT: SPOILING THROUGH MEDIATION? ...................................................... 114 ZURAB TARGAMADZE CONFLICTS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF NATIONALISM: CASE OF GEORGIA ...................................................................................133 KRISTINE MARGARYAN AZERBAIJAN’S INVOLVEMENT IN INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM ......................................................................................................................146
- Topic:
- Security, Foreign Policy, Islam, Military Affairs, Weapons, Conflict, Coup, and Civil-Military Relations
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Eurasia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, Qatar, South Caucasus, and Asia-Pacific
50. Russian Diplomacy: Challenging the West
- Author:
- Charles E Ziegler
- Publication Date:
- 06-2018
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- The Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations
- Institution:
- School of Diplomacy and International Relations, Seton Hall University
- Abstract:
- According to classical realism, diplomacy is the means by which states defend their interests and achieve their objectives short of war, using a mixture of persuasion, compromise, and the threat of force. In the quartercentury since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russian diplomacy has evolved from a passive, Western-orientation toward a muscular, multilateral and assertive posture. In the immediate post-perestroika years Russian diplomacy reflected the nascent democratic character of the new Russia, and the search for a new post-Soviet identity. Since Vladimir Putin ascended to the presidency, Russian diplomacy has become highly effective at several diplomatic issues. These include: Promoting and representing Russian national interests; defending key principles of sovereignty; non-interference in internal affairs; and respect for Russia as a great power; consolidating the former Soviet space as a privileged sphere of Russian influence; and addressing Russia’s vital security concerns in the Eurasian region, including concerns with The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the European Union (EU) expansion eastward.
- Topic:
- Security, Diplomacy, Politics, History, and Military Affairs
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Eurasia, and Soviet Union