Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Role of Strategic Culture and Threat Perception in Foreign Policy Formation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Sources of Russian Foreign Policy Assertiveness

  • 685 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter brings attention to the concepts of strategic culture and threat perception to highlight the importance of context and cultural underpinnings of foreign policy formation. The concept of strategic culture demonstrates the importance of non-material factors in the state’s formation of perceptions of the international environment, showing that it is not the capabilities alone, but rather the perception of other states’ intentions that matter the most. After discussing the concepts of strategic culture and threat perception and related debates in the literature, a model of foreign policy formation is developed. The model of foreign policy formation demonstrates that perception of the international environment is always subjective since it is always seen through the lens of a particular state’s strategic culture, which influences foreign policy in an indirect way by shaping the perceptions of foreign policy executive (defined as a group of decision-makers authorized with the final formulation of foreign policy), who ultimately makes security decisions for the state.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Joseph S. Nye defines intervention as “external actions that influence the domestic affairs of another sovereign state,” and can range from low level of coercion (such as speeches and broadcasts) to high coercion (such as limited military action or military invasion). See Nye, Jr. (2007, 162).

  2. 2.

    Most of the Russia’s official document and presidential statements can be found at the Kremlin’s official website: http://www.kremlin.ru.

References

  • Aggestam, Lisbeth. 1999. “Role Conceptions and the Politics of Identity in Foreign Policy.” ARENA Working Papers WP 99/8. https://www.sv.uio.no/arena/english/research/publications/arena-working-papers/1994-2000/1999/99_08.html.

  • Almond, Gabriel, and Sidney Verba. 1965. The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Boston: Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arbatov, Alexei G. 1999. “Introduction.” In Russia and The West, edited by Alexei G. Arbatov, et al., 3–18. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arbatov, Alexei G., Karl Kaiser, and Robert Legvold, eds. 1999. Russia and the West: The 21st Century Security Environment. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boseman, Adda. 1993. “War and the Clash of Ideas.” In Conflict, Culture & History, edited by Stephen J. Blank, et al., XV–LXIX. Maxwell Force Base, Alabama: Air University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brands, Hal. 2014. What Good Is Grand Strategy? Ithaca and New York: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buzan, Barry, and Lene Hansen. 2010. International Security Studies. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caldwell, Lawrence T. 2007. “Russian Concepts of National Security.” In Russian Foreign Policy in the 21st Century: The Shadow of the Past, edited by Robert Legvold, 279–342. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, David. 1998. Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charap, Samuel, et al. 2021. Russian Grand Strategy: Rhetoric and Reality. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, Raymond. 1978. Threat Perception in International Crisis. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ermarth, Fritz. 2009. “Russian Strategic Culture in Flux: Back to the Future?” In Strategic Culture and Weapons of Mass Destruction, edited by Jeannie L. Johnson, Kerry M. Kartchner, and Jeffrey A. Larsen, 85–96. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, Theo. 2002. “Constructivist Security Studies: Portrait of a Research Program.” International Studies Review 4 (1): 49–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frederick, Bryan, et al. 2017. Assessing Russian Reactions to U.S. and NATO Posture Enhancements. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glenn, John. 2009. “Realism Versus Strategic Culture: Competition and Collaboration?” International Studies Review 11 (3): 523–551.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, Colin S. 1971. “What Rand Hath Wrought.” Foreign Policy 4 (Autumn): 111–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, Colin S. 1981. “National Style in Strategy: The American Example.” International Security 6 (2): 21–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, Colin S. 1986. Nuclear Strategy and National Style. Lanham, Maryland and London: Hamilton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, Colin S. 1999. “Strategic Culture as Context: The First Generation Strikes Back.” Review of International Studies 25 (1): 49–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, Liddell. 1932. The British Way in Warfare. London: Faber & Faber Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heuer Jr., Richards J. 1999. Psychology of Intelligence Analysis. Center for the Study of Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jervis, Robert. 1976. Perception and Misperception in International Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, Alastair I. 1995. “Thinking About Strategic Culture.” International Security 19 (4): 32–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, David R. 1990. “Soviet Strategic Culture.” In Strategic Power: USA/USSR, edited by Carl G. Jacobsen, 35–49. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, Paul M. ed. 1991. Grand Strategies in War and Peace. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keohane, Robert O. 1984. After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kier, Elizabeth. 1997. Imagining War: French and British Military Doctrine Between the Wars. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, Bradley S. 1988. “Hegemony and Strategic Culture: American Power Projection and Alliance Defence Politics.” Review of International Studies 14 (2): 133–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knorr, Klaus, ed. 1976. “Threat Perception.” In Historical Dimensions of National Security Problems, edited by Klaus Knorr, 78–119. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korolev, Alexander. 2016. “Systemic Balancing and Regional Hedging: China–Russia Relations.” The Chinese Journal of International Politics 9 (4): 375–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lake, David A. 1988. Power, Protection, and Free Trade: International Sources of U.S. Commercial Strategy, 1887–1939. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Studies in Political Economy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Legro, Jeffrey W. 1995. Cooperation Under Fire: Anglo-German Restraint During World War II. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leites, Nathan. 1951. The Operational Code of the Politburo. New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levi-Strauss, Claude. 1964. The City and Man. Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, Jack S. 1983. “Misperception and the Causes of War: Theoretical Linkages and Analytical Problems.” World Politics 36 (1): 76–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lo, Bobo. 2015. Russia and the New World Disorder. London, Chatham House and Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mead, Margaret. 1951. Soviet Attitudes Toward Authority: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Problems of Soviet Character. New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, John. 2011. Why Leaders Lie: The Truth About Lying in International Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nye, Joseph S., Jr. 2007. Understanding International Conflict, 6th ed. Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pape, Robert A. 2005. “Soft Balancing Against the United States.” International Security 30 (1): 7–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paul, T. V. 2005. “Soft Balancing in the Age of U.S. Primacy.” International Security 30 (1): 46–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posen, Berry R. 1984. Sources of Military Doctrine. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posen, Barry R. 2014. Restraint: A New Foundation for U.S. Grand Strategy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pronin, Emily. 2007. “Perception and Misperception of Bias in Human Judgment.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11 (1): 37–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumer, Eugene, and Richard Sokolsky. 2020. Etched in Stone Russian Strategic Culture and the Future of Transatlantic Security. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savic, Ivan, and Zachary C. Shirkey. 2017. Uncertainty, Threat, and International Security: Implications for Southeast Asia. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder, Paul W. 1994. “Historical Reality vs. Neo-realist Theory.” International Security 19 (1): 108–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Segal, Gerald. 1985. “Defence Culture and Sino‐Soviet Relations.” Journal of Strategic Studies 8 (2): 180–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, Glenn H. 1997. Alliance Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, Jack L. 1977. “The Soviet Strategic Culture: Implications for Limited Nuclear Operations.” Prepared for U.S. Air Force. Santa Minica, CA: RAND.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sondhaus, Lawrence. 2006. Strategic Culture and Ways of War. New York and London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steff, Reuben M., and Nicholas Khoo. 2014. “Hard Balancing in the Age of American Unipolarity: The Russian Response to US Ballistic Missile Defense During the Bush Administration (2001–2008).” Journal of Strategic Studies 37 (2): 222–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein, Janice Gross. 2013. “Threat Perception in International Relations.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology, 2nd ed., edited by Leonie Huddy, David O. Sears, and Jack S. Levy, 364–394. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, Daniel, and Nick Vaughan-Williams. 2014. “Citizens and Security Threats: Issues, Perceptions and Consequences Beyond the National Frame.” British Journal of Political Science 46 (1): 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Constitution of The Russian Federation, Adopted at National Voting on December 12, 1993. http://www.constitution.ru/en/10003000-01.htm.

  • Walt, Stephen. 1987. The Origins of Alliances. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waltz, Kenneth N. 1979. Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, Max. 1930. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, Max. 1946. Politics as a Vocation. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, Max. 1958. “The Three Types of Legitimate Rule.” Berkeley Publications in Society and Institutions 4 (1): 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weigley, Russell F. 1973. American Way of War: A History of United States Military Strategy and Policy (The Wars of the United States). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wendt, Alexander. 1992. “Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics.” International Organization 46 (2): 391–425.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfers, Arnold. 1952. “‘National Security’ as an Ambiguous Symbol.” Political Science Quarterly 67 (4): 481–502.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaman, Rashed U. 2009. “Strategic Culture: A ‘Cultural’ Understanding of War.” Comparative Strategy 28 (1): 68–88.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Graduate Center, CUNY, New York, NY, USA

    Angela Borozna

Authors
  1. Angela Borozna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Borozna, A. (2022). The Role of Strategic Culture and Threat Perception in Foreign Policy Formation. In: The Sources of Russian Foreign Policy Assertiveness. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83590-3_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation