Advertisement

Conclusion

  • Matthew Sussex
  • Roger E. Kanet

Abstract

It should not be puzzling that the intense divisions emerging in post-Soviet space have only recently captured the broader attention of international relations specialists. After all, when the USSR collapsed many Western academics and policy-makers assumed that the ‘Russia question’, whether for reasons of ideology or raw material power, could finally be relegated to secondary importance (Shearman, 2001). And although Russia’s place in the European order was left unresolved, new arcs of conflict involving transnational terrorism, ethnic struggles, and the ongoing redistribution of global power from the West to the East provided significantly more useful fodder for analysis in the post-Cold War era. In such a milieu the wars in Chechnya, instability in Central Asia, gas wars with Ukraine, and Russian objections to NATO expansion were considered fundamentally less important by successive US administrations concerned about maintaining American eminence or managing its retrenchment. The question of what to do in the aftermath of the Soviet breakup was also neglected by the EU, which assumed that existing institutions and organizations could merely be extended or amended, rather than replaced with a fundamentally new architecture for the management of Eurasian security politics.

Keywords

Foreign Policy Regional Order Shanghai Cooperation Organization Transnational Terrorism Soviet Space 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Cadier, David (2014) ‘Eastern Partnership vs Eurasian Union? The EU-Russia Competition in the Shared Neighborhood and the Ukraine Crisis’, Global Policy, 5(supplement 1), pp. 76–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Marantz, Paul (1997) ‘Russian Foreign Policy During Yeltsin’s Second Term’, Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 30(4), pp. 345–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Mearsheimer, John (2014) ‘Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West’s Fault: The Liberal Delusions that Provoked Putin’, Foreign Affairs, September-October, pp. 441–451.Google Scholar
  4. Ra’anan, Uri and Kate Martin (1994) Russia: A Return to Imperialism. New York: St Martins.Google Scholar
  5. Sakwa, Richard (2008) ‘Putin’s Leadership: Character and Consequences’, Europe-Asia Studies, 60(6), pp. 879–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Shearman, Peter (2001) ‘The Sources of Russian Conduct: Understanding Russian Foreign Policy’, Review of International Studies, 27(2), pp. 249–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Simes, Dmitri (2007) ‘Losing Russia: The Costs of Renewed Confrontation’, Foreign Affairs, November-December, pp. 412–421.Google Scholar
  8. Sussex, Matthew (2014) ‘Russia-Ukraine: what is Putin up to in Crimea?’, Lowy Interpreter, Lowy Institute for International Policy, 3 March, http://www.lowyin-terpreter.org/post/2014/03/03/Russia-Ukraine-What-is-Putin-up-to-in-Crimea.aspx.
  9. Thornton, Rod (2012) ‘Russia’s Conscription Problem’, Russian Analytical Digest, 116, 9 July, pp. 6–7.Google Scholar
  10. Trenin, Dmitri (2006) ‘Russia Leaves the West’, Foreign Affairs, July-August, pp. 219–227.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Matthew Sussex and Roger E. Kanet 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew Sussex
  • Roger E. Kanet

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations