The paper explores a shift from engagement to confrontation in Russia’s policy toward Georgia since the Rose Revolution. In addition to emphasizing power and security as explanations of Russia’s behavior, the paper focuses on considerations of honor and prestige. The latter are relational and a product of Russia’s perception of its ties with Western nations. Honor also plays a crucial role in Georgia’s attitude toward its northern neighbor, and the entire Caucasus area emerges as a battleground for symbolic attributes of power among larger states with capabilities to influence the region. The case of Russia–Georgia divide is important for demonstrating benefits and limitations of traditional foreign policy explanations and for learning possible ways to de‐escalate dangerous bilateral conflicts.

This article addresses the question of interaction between Western and “non‐Western” international relations (IR) by analyzing liberal theory of IR that is emerging in contemporary Russia. We argue that, despite a growing diversity within Russian scholarship of liberal orientation, it remains largely a product of Western, particularly American, intellectual hegemony, and more so than any other theoretical perspective. As compared to two other existing traditions in Russian IR—realism and critical studies—liberalism remains the most dependent and therefore must be explored before any other traditions as a crucial case for understanding the dialectic of cultural dependence and hegemony in production of global knowledge. We argue that the greater dependence of Russian liberal IR results from its relatively weak indigenous tradition, perception of Russia’s material weakness as opportunity, and greater availability of Western research funds. We also discuss an alternative, less dependent version of Russian liberal IR, and opportunities that its existence implies for development of a global, de‐centered international relations theory.

“Faced with external competition, the Kremlin is preoccupied with reviving internal foundations for Russia's soft power appeal.” Second in a series on soft power around the world.

No abstract

As the world moves away from the West-centered international system, IR scholars are increasingly turning their attention to substance and formation of national values. Using the case of Russia, we show how distinct schools of IR theory and foreign policy dominant in the country have come to recognize the importance of national values as a lens through which to assess the country's means and goals of development. Each in its way, these schools—Civilizationists, Statists, and Westernizers—have prioritized “the national” in the country's future. We explain Russia's turn to the national by stressing the country's ontological insecurity, the role of the Russian state, and Western actions that contribute to creating and exacerbating the conditions of ontological insecurity. The case of Russia has important implications for understanding the role of national values in the formation of foreign policy and IR theory.