Global Affairs Center

Research and analysis regarding all aspects of Russia's foreign policy.

The most memorable developments in Russia’s foreign policy in the past year include a breakthrough in the Middle East; a further escalation of the confrontation with the United States; continued alienation from Europe; and a tactical advance in Asia. Russia has significantly expanded its foreign policy arsenal, but there is still a sharp contrast between the country’s foreign policy ambitions and the limited capabilities of its economy.

Rapprochement on Russia's terms - why it won't work for the United States. Jeffrey Mankoff, Foreign Affairs, January 4, 2017

What Moscow and Washington can learn from the last Cold War. Robert Legvold, Foreign Affairs, July/August 2014

Twenty-five years have passed since the Berlin Wall was torn down. NATO identifies Russia as the principal security threat to the West, alongside the Islamic State and Ebola, and prepares to deploy a rapid response force close to Russian borders to deter possible aggression from the East, while the EU and the US tighten the noose of economic sanctions on Russia. Moscow is engaged in nuclear saber-rattling to remind the West of the possible costs of military action against Russia, while making efforts to form a grand anti-US alliance with China. And the parties to a new Cold War are clinched in an intense ideological fight, though this time it centers not on communism versus capitalism, but rather democracy versus autocracy and human rights versus traditional values...

Everyone's favorite historical analogy makes for disastrous foreign policy today. Stephen M. Walt, Foreign Policy, March 12, 2018

Ultimately this paper contends that Russia's actions in Ukraine are best explained by the West's provocation of Russia, epitomized by NATO's eastward expansion, and the resulting cultural and geopolitical vulnerability that animates Putin's ideational narrative; and by Putin's assessment of Russia's relations with its neighbours, with whom Russia is said to share a historical and cultural bond. Both phenomena have fostered a desire to create an alternative to Western dominance of world affairs. How Putin perceives relations with Russia's neighbours and with the West are importantly related.

Contrary to popular belief, Russia’s approach to the Korea crisis is not entirely motivated by bad blood with the U.S. Anthony V. Rinna, The Diplomat, February 1, 2018

Icy comments come in wake of fresh U.S. sanctions over Crimea. Russia hopes for "constructive dialogue" under Trump's presidency. Sheena McKenzie, CNN, December 22, 2016

The authors set out to explore the mutual constitution of post-soviet identity and geopolitical referents serving as the discursive ground for Putin’s foreign policy. They further explore the role of the geo-identitarian discourse in justifying the recomposition of the post-Soviet space after 2000 and the promotion of a new international order. Methodologically, they resort to a dialectics of sorts between “high” and “low” geopolitics in order to uncover the interdependence of national narratives produced by political power (top-down) and society (bottom-up). They come to the conclusion that the plasticity and hybridity of the Russian symbolic grammar has allowed Putin to define a pragmatic and assertive foreign policy intent both on regaining international status for Russia and consolidating the domestic coalition of interests led by him.

The pragmatic and imperialist frames have dominated the analyses of Russian foreign policy. Despite the glaring similarities of Russia’s international conduct with expectations of pragmatism and expansionism, this study argues that Moscow’s foreign policy has been informed by more nuanced and dynamic conceptions of international relations. To uncover the imagery of global politics, as conceived by Russia’s top foreign policy makers, this study employs a critical geopolitics perspective. The latter views foreign policy as a social, cultural, discursive, and political practice of constructing, defending, and living the alternative claims about the ‘truths’ of international relations. The study illuminates Russia’s spatial conceptions of the world, its views of the international actors, and its national identity discourse. It shows how this imagery enters Russia’s geopolitical reasoning that provides the Russian government with ‘rationality’ for projecting soft and hard power in the neighborhood and beyond.

Responding to the growing rift between the United States and Russia, Carnegie Corporation of New York, long committed to improving U.S.-Russia relations, has invited experts to weigh in on the latest challenges in the relationship. Their views and perspectives are aimed at enriching understanding and findings pathways to rebuilding this critical relationship.