Routledge Handbook of Russian Foreign Policy

Andrei Tsygankov, Andrei P. Tsygankov

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9781138690448
• eBook ISBN: 9781134994236
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: International Relations
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Providing a comprehensive overview of Russia's foreign policy directions, this handbook brings together an international team of scholars to develop a complex treatment of Russia's foreign policy. The chapters draw from numerous theoretical traditions by incorporating ideas of domestic institutions, considerations of national security and international recognition as sources of the nation's foreign policy. Covering critically important subjects such as Russia's military interventions in Ukraine and Syria, the handbook is divided into four key parts:

Part I explores the social and material conditions in which Russia's foreign policy is formed and implemented.

Part II investigates tools and actors that participate in policy making including diplomacy, military, media, and others.

Part III provides an overview of Russia's directions towards the United States, Europe, Asia, the Middle East, Eurasia, and the Arctic.

Part IV addresses the issue of Russia's participation in global governance and multiple international organizations, as well as the Kremlin's efforts to build new organizations and formats that suit Russia's objectives.

The Routledge Handbook of Russian Foreign Policy is an invaluable resource to students and scholars of Russian Politics and International Relations, as well as World Politics more generally.

p.1

PART I

Theories and conditions

Andrei P. Tsygankov

Part I selects for a closer review six theoretical approaches each highlighting distinct conditions that explain Russian foreign policy (RFP) – international norms and identity, the country’s position within the global political economy, international military power, geopolitics, nationalism, and energy resources. Although the selected approaches are not meant to be exclusive, they cover most of existing explanations of Russia’s international behavior and should provide a comprehensive menu for those seeking to understand the nation’s strategy and individual decisions.

As I approached individual contributors, I asked them (1) to assess the state of their theoretical school by identifying its most important representatives and research programs; (2) to compare the relevant school’s strengths and weaknesses to those of other theoretical approaches; (3) to address potential methodological pitfalls and formulate, to the extent possible, testable hypotheses; and (4) to do so by providing empirical illustrations and examples.

In her chapter on the role of international norms and identity, Valentina Feklyunina provides an overview of constructivist research on RFP. While sharing similar assumptions about knowledge and reality, constructivists build on various subsets of social science such as psychology, sociology, and cultural studies. Feklyunina discusses four prominent research programs on RFP: studies of ideas and identity; recognition and non-recognition of Russia’s identity by others; international norms; and practices and habits. For instance, some scholars analyzed the role of ideas articulated by Soviet policy entrepreneurs during the early 1970s and the late 1980s. Others researched how Russia’s national identity was contested domestically in response to the West’s recognition or lack thereof and how it resulted in Russia’s relations with Western countries. Various episodes of Russia’s assertive behavior, including the Crimean War, the early Cold War, and the annexation of Crimea following the Euromaidan revolution in Ukraine can be understood as the Kremlin’s reaction to perceived Western disrespect of Russia’s status, reputation, and special cultural ties. Still other scholars investigated how internationally accepted norms of sovereignty and humanitarian intervention were constructed in the Russian domestic setting. Finally, there are those who followed insights of European philosophy and neo-Marxism and studied the historically continuous role of diplomatic practices and social habits in Russia’s interaction with the outside world.

Feklyunina identifies the interpretation of meanings in the selected sources as a main challenge for constructivists. She cautions against the notion of some specific “constructivist” methods and argues for pluralism of methods as long as their application is consistent with the researcher’s ontological and epistemological assumptions. Feklyunina also argues for a more consistent engagement of constructivists with ethics, while preserving the scholarly objectivity. In particular, she challenges constructivist researchers to be explicit about their normative commitments and warns against seeing “the world through Russia’s eyes” while reconstructing Russia’s identity and worldview.

p.2

Viatcheslav Morozov seeks to establish the notion of a “thick” structure and its effects on Russia’s international behavior. His chapter on (post) structural conditions of RFP partly engages with Feklyunina’s analysis. In particular, Morozov reviews historical materialist and discursive approaches to RFP. Of the former, he analyzes Leninist and Trotskian approaches, the world-system perspective, and critical International Political Economy. Of the latter, he reviews approaches associated with the English School, poststructuralism, and post-colonialism. His own approach is an effort to bridge materialist and discursive dimensions in order to make sense of Russia’s peculiar position within the global political economy and its implications for RFP. Morozov identifies Russia’s position as that of a “subaltern empire”: an exploited semi-periphery with respect to the Western core, and a capitalist colonizer with respect to Russia’s Eurasian periphery. Such position explains Russia’s engagement with counter-hegemonic projects such as the BRICS as well as Russia’s attempts to develop Russia-influenced Eurasian Economic Union within, rather than outside, the European hegemonic space.

Morozov recognizes the limitations of the (post) structuralist approach for foreign policy analysis by proposing to combine his approach with second-image theories. The idea of combining different levels of analysis is also present in constructivism, which investigates how international norms are domestically understood and contested. Morozov shares with constructivists an interest in discourse and skepticism regarding the idea of hypothesis-testing. He proposes that researchers should aim not at “explaining specific events” but “understanding their conditions” and meanings.

The third theoretical perspective on RFP is that of international power and security. Elena Kropatcheva reviews various approaches within realism by stressing the recently developed neoclassical school. In particular, she demonstrates how realists explain Russian/Soviet empire building, claims for status, and military interventions. In all cases, the analysis begins with pressures and opportunities presented by the international balance of power to which Russia reacts defensively or offensively depending on its leaders’ perceptions and constrains. For instance, realists explain Soviet “over-extension” in Afghanistan by perceived American pressures. They make sense of Russia’s opposition to Nato’s expansion and conflict with Georgia in August 2008 in terms of the Kremlin’s perception of threat to national security and search for great power status. Here, realists overlap with constructivists who have also studied RFP as a reflection of the country’s status aspirations. However, for realists the stress is always on relative power and security, not on mutually empowering social relations. Thus, the key to understanding Russia’s military interventions in the Caucasus and Ukraine is a global competition with the United States for power and security in the anarchical environment.

According to Kropatcheva, scholars of neoclassical conviction differ from structural realists by adding domestic variables and perceptions. For instance, they argue that Western military and institutional expansion toward Russia’s borders must be understood not only in terms of the threats they present for Russia’s security, but also in terms of Russia’s state capacity, domestic vulnerability, and special relations with neighbors. In particular, the fear of “color revolutions” heightened Russia’s sense of insecurity creating the internal security dilemma. Kropatcheva therefore argues that in terms of providing a more nuanced understanding, neoclassical approaches are superior to those of structural realism. She also finds neoclassical realism well-suited for RFP analysis given its ability to incorporate domestic factors and perceptions as stressed by liberal and constructivist scholars. Along with others, she advocates multiple methods of demonstrating Russia’s (in)security and power capabilities.

p.3

The geopolitical perspective as stressed by John Berryman can be broadly housed within the realist tradition of analysis, yet is distinct in highlighting geographical and spatial considerations in RFP. The often abstract notion of the international system in realism is made specific in geopolitics, which analyzes Russia as a land-based empire with a constant challenge to protect borders and preserve access to water. Berryman combines traditional geopolitics associated with thinkers such as Halford Mackinder and Alfred Mahan with some insights from critical geopolitics, although he remains more firmly rooted in traditional geopolitical approaches. Critical geopolitics analyzes traditional geographic and spatial factors in the context of social and ideological forces and perceptions. Here, geopolitics comes full circle by becoming receptive to constructivist assumptions about inter-subjectivity and social structure of knowledge.

The overall geopolitical approach is better suited for explaining continuity rather than change in RFP. Berryman acknowledges that the approach that stresses the size, topography, and spatial and strategic location can “influence or condition but not determine” international choices. Other theories and factors must account for more nuanced explanations of Russia’s choices. However, Berryman’s approach contributes to a historically rich description of the rising Russian state and security predicaments. He is in agreement with realists that Russia’s empire-building is a product of international environment, but in his account, Russian rulers responded to Western colonial and great power aspirations in the particular geographical settings, having met some earlier resistance from nomadic tribes and seeking to gain access to the Baltic Sea in the west, the Black Sea in the south, and the Pacific Ocean in the east. In the south, Russia faced a fierce competition from the British Empire by eventually colonizing the Caucasus and Central Asia. Berryman then applies the geopolitical competition approach to RFP during the nineteenth, twentieth, and twenty-first centuries, explaining the consistent preoccupation of the Russian rulers with borders and position in the “heartland” of Eurasia. He amplifies the realist analyses of Russia’s interventions in Georgia and Ukraine by describing the pervasive sense of geopolitical insecurity in the Kremlin.

The systemic conditions therefore are limited in their power to explain RFP and must be supplemented by analysis of domestic factors and institutions. Constructivism and neoclassical realism in particular indicate that they are open to integration of domestic conditions within their framework, albeit on their own terms. Constructivism believes in the logic of a social interaction between international and domestic, whereas neoclassical realism recognizes the ability of domestic to interfere with the (ultimately decisive) impact of the international.

The remaining two chapters each stress various domestic conditions. Luke March analyzes the role that nationalism plays in Russia’s international behavior. He defines nationalism as the congruence of the state and national and considers theories of nationalism that stress the defining role of the international system, national and historical values, and characteristics of political regime. The latter have gained prominence in Western academic and political circles among those who attribute Russia’s annexation of Crimea and international assertiveness in Europe, the Middle East, and the cyber space to a diversionary tactic to boost Putin’s popularity. March recognizes nationalism’s utility for regime legitimacy but objects to over-simplifying links between domestic and foreign policy. Nationalism, he argues, is a complex, multi-layered ideology that incorporates various influences and may contain both negative and positive impulses. March develops a holistic model of nationalism that incorporates analysis of official beliefs, political considerations, and mainstream non-official discourses. In particular, he demonstrates how non-official “civilizational” nationalism developed before and after Russia’s intervention in Georgia in August 2008. The civilization ideology indeed influenced the regime yet in a more limited way than some would expect.

p.4

March acknowledges that even his multi-layered approach to nationalism is not sufficiently nuanced to demonstrate causation and “the degree to which such nationalist ideas actually impact policy”. He calls for further research of the actual role of nationalism on RFP and proposes multiple methods for studying various layers and the real impact of nationalist ideas. March alerts readers to practical and methodological difficulties of researching beliefs and ideas, yet suggests that such research – for instance, by process-tracing and interviews with policy-makers and experts with inside knowledge – is possible.

The final chapter by Yuval Weber reviews yet another prominent approach that stresses the role of energy and explains RFP by the ways in which the political regime exploits the country’s available energy resources. Weber takes issue with the war chest theory that argues the connection between growing energy revenues and international assertiveness, including military intervention. He argues that the ultimate decisive influence in foreign policy results from leader’s beliefs and internal politics, whereas the revenue environment merely adds to the menu of available policy choices. Weber shows how the politically weak Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev lost the internal battle to military hawks and had to use oil revenue to fund expansionism in the developing countries, thereby derailing détente with the West. Alternatively, the politically strong Russian leader Putin used the oil “weapon” selectively. Against the expectations of the war chest theory, he did not challenge the West when oil prices were high, but he intervened in Ukraine and Syria long after energy prices had collapsed harming the Russian economy. By warning against the simplistic “oil makes Russia aggressive” arguments, Weber’s petropolitics theory shows the complexity of relations between energy and political regime and calls for researching both the political and energy sides of RFP formation.

p.5

1

INTERNATIONAL NORMS AND IDENTITY

Valentina Feklyunina

NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY, UK

The rise of social constructivism in International Relations (IR) theory has had a major impact on studies of Russian foreign policy (RFP). Although this may also be true of foreign policy studies related to other states, constructivist studies of Russian and Soviet foreign policies played a crucial role in the emergence of social constructivism as one of the mainstream approaches to studying international politics more broadly. It is sometimes suggested that the rise of social constructivism in IR was linked to the inability of other theoretical approaches at the time to predict or explain the largely peaceful end of the Cold War (Wohlforth, 1994). While the intellectual roots of social constructivism go back long before Moscow’s largely unexpected withdrawal from the Cold War (Adler, 2013; Fierke and Jorgensen, 2015), this tectonic change certainly challenged the then dominant structural and rational choice explanations of the Soviet Union’s international behaviour. As argued by Guzzini (2013: 196), ‘what spurred the constructivist critique was . . . that prevailing theories did not even recognize the possibility that it would happen in the first place’. It is har...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Routledge Handbook of Russian Foreign Policy
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of Illustrations
• List of contributors
• Preface
• Part I Theories and Conditions
• Part II Tools and Actors
• Part III Directions
• Part IV Organizations
• Index