Russia as a Euro-Pacific power: Dilemmas of Russian foreign policy decision-making

Abstract

Russia has a dual self-perception deeply rooted in its historical development. It is represented in two competing traditions of defining Russia’s position in the world. While some parts of society view Russia as a part of Europe, others believe that it is a distinct Eurasian power. An academic view – although one less popular among Moscow foreign policy-making elites – defines Russia as a Euro-Pacific power possessing vital interests in Europe and the Asia-Pacific. This article examines recent developments in Russian foreign policy decision-making with a view to interpreting how contemporary dilemmas have featured in the adaptation and rearticulation of the two predominant identity traditions by Russian foreign policy actors since 1991. It also analyses how the beliefs of the situated agents, namely, political elites and bureaucratic, intellectual and business actors at various levels, have contributed to Russia’s interpretation of recent global power shifts. These are examined with particular reference to the ongoing crisis in Russia’s relations with the West, sharply accented in Ukraine, and the emerging significance of the Asia-Pacific for thinking about the Russian foreign policy and its role in the world.

The Eu Indo-Pacific Strategy and the China-Russia relations

“…In these discussions, the EU, which is often regarded as a power outside of this region, receives less attention than the US as a superpower and those players in the region such as India, Japan and the ASEAN [18]. Against the background of China-US rivalry, scholars mentioned the EU as a background factor within the West, which is a more relevant stakeholder in Eurasia than in the Indo-Pacific [19][20][21][22][23]. Scholars noted the enhanced cooperation between China and Russia due to not only the pressure from the West but also broader common interests [24][25][26][27][28][29].…”

Russia's return to Africa: a comparative study of Egypt, Algeria and Morocco

“…The recent shift in Russia's approach towards Africa, and most notably North Africa, should be evaluated within a broader historical-political context of Russian foreign policy dynamics. The post-1990s foreign policymaking was largely influenced by the involvement of previously excluded non-political actors, such as federal and regional bureaucracies, business communities and think tanks (Koldunova 2015: 385), as well as by internal civil unrest, the rise of poverty resulting from a ‘market opening strategy’ and a drastic ‘shock therapy’ adopted to shift from an administrative type of economy towards a market economy. This internal turmoil resulted in an initial decline in foreign policy activities (El-Doufani 1994; Koldunova 2015).…”

“…A partial revival started in the late 1990s following the second Balkan war. At that time, an increased search for national identity occurred within the foreign policy debate (Koldunova 2015; Nitoiu 2017). Consequently, with President Putin in office, an intensive debate on ‘regaining the great power status’ has started and foreign policy activities have intensified (Herd & Akerman 2002; Lee 2010; Nitoiu 2017).…”

“…The ambitions for a greater power status initially started with balancing the position of Russia against the West, represented by the USA and Europe. Later on, the idea of Eurasianism was introduced, focusing on Russia's integration project in Eurasia (Koldunova 2015: 382). The turning point was the Munich speech of President Putin in 2007, in which he voiced a general discontent with activities of the West in both Eastern Europe and the Middle East (Allison 2013).…”

Security, Civilisation and Modernisation: Continuity and Change in the Russian Foreign Policy Discourse

“…Analyses of Russian foreign policy discourses give great prominence to identity issues (Hopf 1999;Kassianova 2001;Duncan 2005;Koldunova 2015). Many of these studies trace the debates about what kind of state Russia is and aspires to be, its place in world politics, and the values and norms with which it identifies (Light 2003, p. 44).…”