The Kosovo factor in Russia's foreign policy

Baranovsky, Vladimir

doi:10.1080/03932720008458130

Cited by 7 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The feeling of being excluded from decision-making motivated the Kremlin to adopt a more confrontational approach towards the West, because it confirmed to the political and military elite that the country 'has to rely on military strength, rather than on illusions about justice and good intentions in international relations'. 50 From 2000 onwards, strengthening the military became a priority as this seemed indispensable to protect the country's ability to act as an independent pole in international politics, whose views could not be ignored. Interventions leading to regime change in Iraq in 2003 and in Libya in 2011, which Moscow had strongly opposed, were seen as further evidence that military weakness curtailed the country's international clout and freedom of actions.…”

Section: Status and Military Powermentioning

confidence: 99%

Russian responses to the changing character of war

Renz¹

2019

International Affairs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For much of the post-Soviet era there was a widespread belief that improving capabilities required for dealing with local small wars and insurgencies was the central focus of Russian military reforms. As a result, Moscow's military assertiveness and return to geopolitical rivalries since 2014 came as a surprise to many in the West. The article argues that small wars were never the major focus of Russian military transformation and reforms. Tracing the country's experience of war and conflict regionally and internationally since the end of the Cold War, and the impact this had on Moscow's views on what kind of armed forces it required, the article shows that the Kremlin's military ambitions started to diverge dramatically from western expectations as early as the mid-1990s. Russia never really saw armed forces geared towards small and ‘new war’-type scenarios as sufficient for upholding its regional and international status ambitions. Moreover, the Kremlin's growing preoccupation with internal order and regime stability has increasingly reinforced the rhetoric of a hostile West, which is used to justify the increasing centralization of domestic politics. Russia's military revival has been long in the making and poses serious challenges to its neighbours and to the West.

show abstract

Section: Status and Military Powermentioning

confidence: 99%

Russian responses to the changing character of war

Renz¹

2019

International Affairs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Это происходило не только из-за того, что антизападные настроения в России приобрели новый импульс и качество, но и, более конкретно, в связи с тем, что использование аргументов из арсенала «ответственности по защите» для оправдания военной интервенции было воспринято как ее лицемерное и циничное прикрытие в вопиющем противоречии с международным правом и гуманитарными соображениями. 11 В период короткого «междуцарствия» времен президентства Дмитрия Медведева (2008-2012 гг.) эти негативные нюансы временами ослабевали.…”

Section: Iunclassified

Evolution of Russia’s approaches to the “responsibility to protect”

Baranovsky¹

2018

PPS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Аннотация Кризис в отношениях России и западных стран негативно сказывается на возможностях «ответственности по защите» как инструмента коллективно согласованной реакции на возникающие в международной среде гуманитарные проблемы. Однако в этой области уже имеется немалый, хотя и противоречивый, опыт международного взаимодействия, в т. ч. с участием России. Ее отношение к концептуальным и практическим аспектам «ответственности по защите» остается настороженно-критическим-прежде всего по мотивам, касающимся суверенитета и вопросов трансграничного применения силы. Однако потенциал российского вовлечения в продвижение этой линии существует и может содействовать переключению динамики международно-политического развития в позитивное русло.

show abstract

The crisis of nuclear arms control

Kühn

2021

Z Friedens und Konflforsch

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The politics of nuclear arms control between the United States and Russia are in a protracted state of crisis, which is in need of explanation. This article provides an overview of bilateral contractual milestones from 1972 to 2001 and analyzes instances of cooperation through the lens of three key factors that have influenced the process. It then considers the changes that these factors have undergone over twenty years of crisis in bilateral arms control from 2001 to 2021 and gauges the possible consequences of a continuation of the current situation. It concludes that during the first period, a shared willingness to shield the bilateral process from political disruption, U.S. bipartisan support, and cooperatively addressing the vertical diffusion of offensive and defensive missile capabilities were both possible and necessary for ensuring success. During the second period, these key factors underwent significant changes and ultimately had a negative effect on the bilateral process, which makes the current crisis unique compared to earlier episodes of regression. Most importantly, both sides were no longer willing to shield the bilateral process in its entirety during this period, including defensive and sub-strategic offensive elements. With a view to future consequences, these findings point to reduced arms race stability, weaker negotiated outcomes, and an erosion of the global nonproliferation regime.

show abstract

The Kosovo factor in Russia's foreign policy

Cited by 7 publications

References 0 publications

Russian responses to the changing character of war

Russian responses to the changing character of war

Evolution of Russia’s approaches to the “responsibility to protect”

The crisis of nuclear arms control

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About