The authors present complex analysis of US–Russia relations under the Biden Administration. W. Mead’s methodology (typology of foreign policy ideology) and S. Gunnitsky and A. Tsygankov’s theoretical framework (Wilsonian approach) are used. The article examines the motives of Russian and American foreign policies towards each other, as well as the outcomes for the Russia factor in US domestic politics and its impact on the bilateral relations. The authors identify the nature of ideological and political confrontation of the two nations which stems from their mutual perceptions and interpretations of the world order. It is revealed that the strengthening of ideological motivation of US foreign policy under the Biden Administration is aimed to rally Western countries behind the rivalry with illiberal regimes (Russia and China). At the same time, Russia perceives the current confrontation with the United States as an existential threat since it challenges its geopolitical power and national identity. The research looks into such aspects of US–Russia relations as sanctions against Russia, climate change interaction, global security and arms control. The authors conclude that US–Russia ideological confrontation is systematic; steps towards cooperation are aimed at preventing possible escalation. In the near future, US–Russia relations can be considered as a combination (i.e. sanctions, supporting Russian opposition, countering Russia in the post-Soviet region) and selective dialogue and cooperation on such issues as strategic stability, arms control, cybersecurity and climate change. US–Russia relations are not likely to undergo fundamental changes until at least 2024, when new electoral cycles start both in Russia and in the United States. Under current conditions, the management of the US–Russia confrontation remains the major goal for the sides.

АННОТАЦИЯ. В статье рассматривается процесс идейно-политической трансформации американского консерватизма под воздействием внешнеполитических факторов в XXI веке. На основе метода «идеологической морфологии» Майкла Фридена исследованы внешнеполитические концепции различных течений американского консерватизма: неоконсерватизма, традиционализма, социального консерватизма, либертарианизма, палеоконсерватизма. Среди консервативных концепций внешней политики США выявлены два основных направления: интервенционистское и изоляционистское. В свете идеологического подхода представлен анализ внешнеполитического аспекта «трампизма» как современного варианта популизма в США. Выявлены характеристики «трампизма» как идеологии «с разреженным цен-тром» (thin-centred ideology), которая основывается на антитезе «благородный американский народ» и «коррумпированная вашингтонская элита», позиционирует себя в качестве проводника «общей воли народа» и использует концепты «основной» (host ideology) идеологии (консерватизма) для формирования собственного внешнеполитического дискурса. Определена связь международной повестки «трампизма» с изоляционистскими и протекционистскими идеями палеоконсерватизма. Прослежено влияние консервативных идеологических установок на эволюцию внешнеполитической доктрины США на современном этапе.

The article provides an analysis of Russia’s role and place in President Biden’s U.S. foreign policy aims. Particularly, this paper explores clashing world order visions, issues pertaining to national sovereignty, post-Soviet space development, sanction policies, climate change issues, and global security. The following research reveals that the rivalry between the United States and Russia influences the system of international relations, because both parties promote substantially different concepts of the future world order. The Biden administration was unwilling to make the necessary concessions to accommodate Russia because 1) there is a huge gulf between the two country’s world views that even makes negotiations between the two almost impossible, and 2) because it does not take Russia seriously and views it as a declining power. As a result, the two sides were unable to come to some kind of negotiated agreement that would have addressed Russia’s concerns including the Ukraine issue. Instead, deterring Russia has become a priority for U.S. foreign policy in critical areas such as national sovereignty, the democratic development of post-Soviet countries, Russian-related human rights issues, and U.S. sanction policies against Russia. Comparing Trump’s presidency to the Biden administration’s first year in office, Biden has championed a more pragmatic narrative towards Russia. Most evidently, this is manifested in problems concerning universal global challenges such as strategic stability, cyber-security, and even aspects of climate change. Nevertheless, the possibility of concluding any serious negotiations between the parties on new world order parameters seems less realistic today than ever before.

Вызов, который правый популизм бросил в США и консерватизму, и либеральной демократии, заслуживает самого внимательного рассмотрения сквозь призму идеологического подхода. На основе метода “идеологической морфологии” Майкла Фридена автор статьи анализирует идейные структуры американского консерватизма и популизма. Методология исследования предполагает разделение идеологий на несамостоятельные “с разреженным идейным центром” (thin-centred ideology) и “основные” (host ideology). Первые, в число которых входит популизм, формируют свой дискурс, заимствуя концепты у более универсальных “основных” идеологий, таких как консерватизм. Автор разбирает идейное содержание основных типов американского консерватизма (традиционализм, либертарианизм, социальный консерватизм, неоконсерватизм, палеоконсерватизм) и популизма, исследует развитие интеллектуального консервативного движения в США во взаимосвязи с идейной эволюцией популизма, выявляет соотношение американского консерватизма и популизма на различных исторических этапах, рассматривает роль консерватизма в формировании “трампизма” как современного варианта популизма в США, ушедшего, возможно, на время с политической сцены. Исследуются базовые элементы идеологической системы “трампизма”: антитеза “благородного американского народа” и “коррумпированной вашингтонской элиты”, концепт “единой воли народа”. Автору удалось выявить, что “трампизм”, с одной стороны, создает угрозу для либеральной демократии в США, но с другой – несет потенциал для ее корректировки. Прослеживается акцепция “трампизмом” палеоконсервативных идей внешнеполитического изоляционизма и экономического протекционизма, определяется соотношение “трампизма” с умеренным традиционализмом во внутриполитической повестке в период президентства Д. Трампа. Результаты состоявшихся в 2020 г. президентских выборов проанализированы в контексте идейно-политической эволюции республиканской партии.

Modern day politicians often refer to historical memory in order to construct and/or adjust foreign policy. The analysis of historical memory as one of the tools for constructing foreign policy narratives is attracting increasing scientific interest in the study of international relations. Under conditions of deep socio-political split in the USA and fragmentation of American identity, representatives of the Democratic administration actively turn to historical memory, trying to explain the changing international realities and justify the implemented foreign policy course. The article attempts to identify the key historical narratives of the Biden Administration and analyze how their use influences the foreign policy of the U.S. at the present stage. To achieve this goal, the authors used the method of narrative interpretation to conduct a qualitative analysis of a broad source base (speeches, interviews, press conferences of key representatives of the U.S. executive branch). As a result, a number of foreign policy narratives with the most characteristic historical subjects for the current administration were identified. It has been established that U.S. leaders address historical memory as part of discourses on the promotion of liberal democracy in the world; the limits of “hard power” and the fight against international terrorism; human rights and freedoms; relations with Russia; and the defense of a liberal world order. It is determined that historical narratives are often used by the United States to legitimize its unilateral and discriminatory foreign policy actions. The authors conclude that for the current administration the construction of foreign policy narratives through selective reference to the subjects of American historical memory becomes one of the key tools of adaptation to the development of international multipolarity, mobilization of its resources and consolidation of allies to defend the “free world” from “illiberal” opponents.