Advertisement

Chapter 11: Russia’s Security-Related Decision-Making: The Case of Crimea

  • Stephen FortescueEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

In the context of the ongoing debate over the relative importance of personalist and institutionalized arrangements in contemporary Russian policy-making, an analysis is undertaken of the Russian decision to annex Crimea. The findings, while necessarily tentative, are that, while the specific decision was probably taken within a small group of officials with close personal links to the president, those officials themselves represent significant policy institutions. Additionally, decision makers had access to a range of information sources on the potential implications of the annexation decision. However, while the presence of institutional arrangements with moderating potential should not be ignored, it is suggested that they are weaker here than in less security-related areas of Russian politics.

Keywords

Foreign Policy Security Council Security Agency Military Expenditure Permanent Member 
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.

Bibliography

  1. Allison, R. (2014). Russian “deniable’ intervention in Ukraine: how and why Russia broke the rules. International Affairs, 90(6), 1255–1297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bjelakovic, N. (2008). Russian military procurement: Putin’s impact on decision-making and budgeting. Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 21(3), 527–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Butrin, D. (2015, September 8). Sovet bezopasnosti i on. Kommersant. http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2805251/. Accessed 8 September 2015.
  4. Cooper, J. (nd). Reviewing Russian strategic planning: the emergence of Strategy 2020. NDC Research Review. NATO Defense College.Google Scholar
  5. Dneprov, B. (2015, December 28). V kakikh “palatakh” formiruetsia antiukrainskaia strategiia Kremlia, VectorNews. vnews.agency/exclusive/24443-v-kakih-palatah-formiruetsya-antiukrainskaya-strategiya-kremlya.html. Accessed 4 January 2016.Google Scholar
  6. Fortescue, S. (2006). Business-state negotiations and the reform of tax procedures in post-Yukos Russia. Law in Context, 24(2), 36–59.Google Scholar
  7. Fortescue, S. (2009). The Russian law on subsurface resources: a policy marathon. Post-Soviet Affairs, 25(2), 160–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fortescue, S. (2010a). Institutionalization and personalism in the policy-making process of the Soviet Union and post-Soviet Russia. In: S. Fortescue (Ed.), Russian politics from Lenin to Putin. Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fortescue, S. (2010b). Russia’s SWFs: controlled by a domestic agenda. In: X. Yi-Chong & G. Bahgat (Eds.), The political economy of Sovereign wealth funds. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  10. Fortescue, S. (2012). The policymaking process in Putin’s prime ministership. In: L. Jonson & S. White (Eds.), Waiting for reform under Putin and Medvedev. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  11. Fortescue, S. (2014). The BRICS and Russia. In: V. Io Lo & M. Hiscock (Eds.), The rise of the BRICS in the global political economy: changing paradigms? Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  12. Fortescue, S. (2015, June 15). Russia’s “turn to the East”: a study in policy making. Post-Soviet Affairs. doi:  10.1080/1060586X.2015.1051750.
  13. Gaaze, K. (2014, September 1). Poker dlia odnogo. Novoe vremia. http://www.newtimes.ru/articles/print/86540/. Accessed 15 September 2014.
  14. Gabuev, A., Mel’nikov, K., Surnacheva, E. (2013, December 23). Konfliktov net na samom del. Kommersant. http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2370046. Accessed 23 December 2013.
  15. Galeotii, M. (2015, October 12). Putin’s spies and security men: his strongest allies, his greatest weakness. Russian Analytical Digest, No.173.Google Scholar
  16. Hill, D. (2001, August 2). Russia: analyst ponders reasons for Luzhkov’s Crimea comments, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. rferl.org/content/article/1097079.html. Accessed 23 November 2015.Google Scholar
  17. Jones, E., & Brusstar, J. H. (1993). Moscow’s emerging security decisionmaking system: the role of the security council. Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 6(3), 345–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kates, G. (2014, April 24). The online debate over a mysterious Russian “medal”. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. http://www.rferl.org/content/the-online-debate-over-a-mysterious-russian-medal/25361367.html. Accessed 4 February 2016.
  19. Kondrashov, A. (2015, March 16). Crimea. Path to the Motherland (film). Announcement. Ukraine Hot News. youtube.com/watch?v=x_NQIUukfcI. Accessed 23 November 2015.
  20. Kramer, M. (2014, March 19). Why did Russia give away Crimea sixty years ago? Cold War International History Project, e-dossier No.47. Washington, DC: Wilson Center. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/why-did-russia-give-away-crimea-sixty-years-ago. Accessed 23 November 2015.
  21. Kryshtanovskaya, O., & White, S. (2003). Putin’s militocracy. Post-Soviet Affairs, 19(4), 289–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Levinson, A. (2015, July 28). Public opinion and propaganda in Russia, European Council on Foreign Relations. ecfr.eu/article/commentary_public_opinion_and_propaganda_in_russia3080. Accessed 4 January 2016.Google Scholar
  23. Malloy, S. L. (2008). Atomic tragedy: Henry L. Stimson and the decision to use the bomb against Japan. Ithaca and New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Minchenko Consulting. (2014, October 22). “Politbiuro 2.0” i postkrymskaia Rossiia. minchenko.ru/netcat_files/File/Politburo%20October%202014.pdf. Accessed 13 April 2015.Google Scholar
  25. Monaghan, A. (2013). Putin’s Russia: shaping a grand strategy? International Affairs, 89(5), 1221–1236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Monaghan, A. (2014). Defibrillating the Vertikal? Putin and Russian grand strategy. London: Chatham House Research Paper.Google Scholar
  27. Polozhenie o Sovete Bezopasnosti Rossiiskoi Federatsii. (2011, May 6). Ukaz Prezidenta Rossiiskoi Federatsii, Voprosy Soveta Bezopasnosti Rossiiskoi Federatsii, No. 590, Rossiiskaia gazeta, 10 May.Google Scholar
  28. Renz, B. (2012). The Russian power ministries and security services. In: G. Gill & J. Young (Eds.), Routledge handbook of Russian politics and society. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Sherr, J. (2015). The new East-West discord. Russian objectives, Western interests, Clingendael Report. Netherlands Institute of International Relations.Google Scholar
  30. Shul’man, E. (2015, February 16). Verkhovenstvo prava: rol’ lichnosti. Vedomosti http://www.vedomosti.ru/newspaper/article/844411/rol-lichnosti. Accessed 16 February 2015.
  31. Stanovaia, T. (2016). Kak Sovet Bezopasnosti zamenil v Rossii pravitel’stvo. Moskovskii tsentr Karnegi. carnegie.ru/commentary/2016/01/28/ru-62605/it9z. Accessed 9 February 2016.Google Scholar
  32. Surnacheva, E. (2014, May 10). Kak kovalas’ pobeda v Krymu i pomogala li Rossiia provedeniiu. Slon.ru. slon.ru/Russia/kak_kovalas_pobeda_v_krymu-1095637.xhtml. Accessed 23 November 2015.Google Scholar
  33. Putin, V. (2008, April 2). Speech at NATO summit (Bucharest, 2008). http://www.unian.info/world/111033-text-of-putins-speech-at-nato-summit-bucharest-april-2-2008.html. Accessed 23 November 2015.
  34. Valenta, J. (1979). Soviet intervention in Czechoslovakia, 1968. Anatomy of a decision. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Vendil Pallin, C. (2007). The Russian power ministries: tool and insurance of power. Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 20(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Vendil Pallin, C. (2009). Russian military reform. A failed exercise in defence decision making. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Ven Bruusgaard, K. (2014). Crimea and Russia’s strategic overhaul. Parameters, 44(3), 81–90.Google Scholar
  38. Williams, K. (1996). New sources on Soviet decision making during the 1968 Czechoslovak crisis. Europe-Asia Studies, 48(3), 457–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zygar’, M. (2016). Vse kremlevskaia rat’. Kratkaia istoriia sovremennoi Rossii. Moscow: Intellektual’naia literatura.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of New South Wales and Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations