{"title":"俄罗斯外交政策","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199743292-0310","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Russian foreign policy has undergone substantial shifts in the post–Cold War period. Scholarly attention toward the topic has also experienced ebbs and flows as the breakup of the Soviet Union drastically decreased general interest toward a newly emerged Russia. The initial period of Russian foreign policy in the early 1990s was to a large degree a continuation of Soviet foreign policy, with its focus on cooperative relations with the West. This, in turn, combined with the general weakness of the Russian state, resulted in the relative disregard of other foreign policy directions. The deepening domestic power struggle led to a growing opposition toward the pro-Western course and paved the way for a number of domestic players to influence Russia’s foreign policy course. Vladimir Putin’s arrival to power in 2000 and the domestic changes he introduced freed foreign policy from most of its domestic constraints, at least temporarily. During his first presidential term (2000–2004), Russian foreign policy oscillated between competition with the West (the United States in particular) and attempts to integrate Russia as the West’s equal partner. The consolidation of the regime, which accelerated in Putin’s second presidential term (2004–2008), left its mark on foreign policy. Russia’s engagement with the external world underwent substantial changes, which turned out to be durable for the next decade and a half. Material resurgence, the strengthening of the state, and the domestic political consolidation fueled Russia’s assertiveness in international politics. These processes culminated in Putin’s 2007 Munich speech and the 2008 war with Georgia. The following period of the so-called tandemocracy (2008–2012), with Putin becoming prime minister and Dmitri Medvedev serving as president, led to a partial warming in relations with the West, though Russia continued its assertive policy. Russia also deepened its cooperation with a rising China. Putin’s return to power in 2012 initiated the conservative-nationalist turn in domestic politics, which was reflected in foreign policy. Russia increasingly positioned itself not only as a geopolitical challenger to the West, but also a normative one. The annexation of Crimea (2014), followed by the military intervention in Syria (2015), opened a new phase in Russian foreign policy. Moscow became bolder in using military force abroad and enlarged its presence in such regions as sub-Saharan Africa. The explanations of change and continuity in Russian foreign policy can be grouped in several camps, with scholars emphasizing power politics and external constraints, domestic politics, and the role of ideas and identity. The emerging trend is the growing popularity of pluralist explanations of Russian foreign policy.","PeriodicalId":47031,"journal":{"name":"International Relations","volume":"41 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Russian Foreign Policy\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/obo/9780199743292-0310\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Russian foreign policy has undergone substantial shifts in the post–Cold War period. Scholarly attention toward the topic has also experienced ebbs and flows as the breakup of the Soviet Union drastically decreased general interest toward a newly emerged Russia. The initial period of Russian foreign policy in the early 1990s was to a large degree a continuation of Soviet foreign policy, with its focus on cooperative relations with the West. This, in turn, combined with the general weakness of the Russian state, resulted in the relative disregard of other foreign policy directions. The deepening domestic power struggle led to a growing opposition toward the pro-Western course and paved the way for a number of domestic players to influence Russia’s foreign policy course. Vladimir Putin’s arrival to power in 2000 and the domestic changes he introduced freed foreign policy from most of its domestic constraints, at least temporarily. During his first presidential term (2000–2004), Russian foreign policy oscillated between competition with the West (the United States in particular) and attempts to integrate Russia as the West’s equal partner. The consolidation of the regime, which accelerated in Putin’s second presidential term (2004–2008), left its mark on foreign policy. Russia’s engagement with the external world underwent substantial changes, which turned out to be durable for the next decade and a half. Material resurgence, the strengthening of the state, and the domestic political consolidation fueled Russia’s assertiveness in international politics. These processes culminated in Putin’s 2007 Munich speech and the 2008 war with Georgia. The following period of the so-called tandemocracy (2008–2012), with Putin becoming prime minister and Dmitri Medvedev serving as president, led to a partial warming in relations with the West, though Russia continued its assertive policy. Russia also deepened its cooperation with a rising China. Putin’s return to power in 2012 initiated the conservative-nationalist turn in domestic politics, which was reflected in foreign policy. Russia increasingly positioned itself not only as a geopolitical challenger to the West, but also a normative one. The annexation of Crimea (2014), followed by the military intervention in Syria (2015), opened a new phase in Russian foreign policy. Moscow became bolder in using military force abroad and enlarged its presence in such regions as sub-Saharan Africa. The explanations of change and continuity in Russian foreign policy can be grouped in several camps, with scholars emphasizing power politics and external constraints, domestic politics, and the role of ideas and identity. The emerging trend is the growing popularity of pluralist explanations of Russian foreign policy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47031,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Relations\",\"volume\":\"41 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Relations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199743292-0310\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Relations","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199743292-0310","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Russian foreign policy has undergone substantial shifts in the post–Cold War period. Scholarly attention toward the topic has also experienced ebbs and flows as the breakup of the Soviet Union drastically decreased general interest toward a newly emerged Russia. The initial period of Russian foreign policy in the early 1990s was to a large degree a continuation of Soviet foreign policy, with its focus on cooperative relations with the West. This, in turn, combined with the general weakness of the Russian state, resulted in the relative disregard of other foreign policy directions. The deepening domestic power struggle led to a growing opposition toward the pro-Western course and paved the way for a number of domestic players to influence Russia’s foreign policy course. Vladimir Putin’s arrival to power in 2000 and the domestic changes he introduced freed foreign policy from most of its domestic constraints, at least temporarily. During his first presidential term (2000–2004), Russian foreign policy oscillated between competition with the West (the United States in particular) and attempts to integrate Russia as the West’s equal partner. The consolidation of the regime, which accelerated in Putin’s second presidential term (2004–2008), left its mark on foreign policy. Russia’s engagement with the external world underwent substantial changes, which turned out to be durable for the next decade and a half. Material resurgence, the strengthening of the state, and the domestic political consolidation fueled Russia’s assertiveness in international politics. These processes culminated in Putin’s 2007 Munich speech and the 2008 war with Georgia. The following period of the so-called tandemocracy (2008–2012), with Putin becoming prime minister and Dmitri Medvedev serving as president, led to a partial warming in relations with the West, though Russia continued its assertive policy. Russia also deepened its cooperation with a rising China. Putin’s return to power in 2012 initiated the conservative-nationalist turn in domestic politics, which was reflected in foreign policy. Russia increasingly positioned itself not only as a geopolitical challenger to the West, but also a normative one. The annexation of Crimea (2014), followed by the military intervention in Syria (2015), opened a new phase in Russian foreign policy. Moscow became bolder in using military force abroad and enlarged its presence in such regions as sub-Saharan Africa. The explanations of change and continuity in Russian foreign policy can be grouped in several camps, with scholars emphasizing power politics and external constraints, domestic politics, and the role of ideas and identity. The emerging trend is the growing popularity of pluralist explanations of Russian foreign policy.
期刊介绍:
International Relations is explicitly pluralist in outlook. Editorial policy favours variety in both subject-matter and method, at a time when so many academic journals are increasingly specialised in scope, and sectarian in approach. We welcome articles or proposals from all perspectives and on all subjects pertaining to international relations: law, economics, ethics, strategy, philosophy, culture, environment, and so on, in addition to more mainstream conceptual work and policy analysis. We believe that such pluralism is in great demand by the academic and policy communities and the interested public.