This paper argues that Russia's strategic objective of developing its Asiatic regions is tied to its serious intentions in Asia as a whole. It stresses that Russia can only connect to the political, economic, and cultural life of Eurasia and the Asia-Pacific through its own Asian regions. Moreover, leaders’ claims that Russia belongs to both Europe and Asia will carry little weight with their Asiatic neighbors if Russia's own Asiatic regions remain underdeveloped and subject to shrinking populations. The paper critically analyzes the results of various projects of development of Asiatic Russia beginning from late tsarist period until the 21st century and shows that Russia needs to put forward a formal strategy for developing the Eurasian infrastructure that is comparable to the SREB, Kazakhstan's NurlyZhol (Bright Path) economic stimulus plan, Mongolia's Steppe Road, and others. This strategy should reflect Russia's objectives for the economic development of its own Asiatic regions, and through them, the co-development with its neighbors of Eurasia generally. It argues that the Trans-Eurasian Belt Development, put forward by several Russia think tanks, could become Russia's contribution to the development of the Eurasian space and mesh with the Chinese, Kazakh, Mongolian, and other partner initiatives. Its implementation would help spur the economic development of Asiatic Russia, enabling that region to become part of the larger economic development of Eurasia. That would help turn Russia into a more important independent and constructive player in the Eurasian space, acting in close coordination with its partners in both the East and the West.

Course Description and Objectives Throughout history Russia has had an ambiguous relationship with the Western world. Sometimes the West has been vilified as a threat or an enemy, and other times it has been held up by Russians as a model to emulate, even as a path to salvation from Russia's endemic social and economic woes. Russia and the West have never treated each other with indifference, and this love/hate relationship is in full force today. In this course, we will examine why this has been the case, and particularly what it means for Russian foreign and security policy today. Drawing on contributions from philosophers and historians as well as international relations scholars and practitioners, we will discuss whether Russia's interaction with the West has been driven primarily by realist great power considerations, by a cultural cycle of Orthodox Slavic nationalism vs. pro-Western internationalism, by domestic economic pressures, or by the idiosyncratic visions and interests of individual Russian leaders-and in turn, how choices made by the West have affected all of these things. Students will be encouraged to come up with their own answers to these riddles, thereby honing their critical reasoning and argumentation skills. A simulation of an international summit meeting will hone students' speaking and oral presentation skills. Students will leave the course with a broad, factual knowledge about selected current and historical Russian political, foreign policy, and security issues, as well as with an introduction to some of the current theoretical debates among scholars of international relations and Russian foreign policy. Through reading the works of both Russians observing the West, and Westerners observing Russia, students will also have the opportunity to reexamine some of their own views on the broader meaning and significance of Western culture. Course Requirements and Grading Students will take an in-class midterm exam on Mar. 11, as well as a final exam at the date and time set by the College (which has not yet been announced). For both the midterm and final, which are otherwise closed-book, students may bring with them one 8 ½" by 11" sheet of paper, on which they have written or typed anything they like.

No abstract

Аннотация. Актуальность темы статьи определяют военная эскалация в современном мире и кризис международной системы миростроительства. Цель исследования составлял анализ негативного исторического опыта Лиги Наций, в качестве уроков истории для Организации Объединенных Наций. Ключевой использованный метод-компаративистский, историко-политологический анализ, позволяющий сопоставить предвоенную международную правовую систему с современной. Исторические параллели позволили сделать вывод об опасных тенденциях, подводящих к угрозе глобальной катастрофы. Аналитический материал показывает проект Лиги Наций как организацию, устанавливающую ценностную и геополитическую доминацию определенных субъектов мировой политики. Организация Объединенных Наций создавалась, согласно авторской оценке, с учетом неудачного опыта Лиги Наций, на основе идеи ценностного консенсуса. Современной угрозой для человечества автор считает латентную подмену на уровне ООН идеи ценностного консенсуса ценностным универсализмом. 1