Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.21638/spbu06.2021.303
A. Velikaya
Strategic advising and capacity building are closely interconnected, as they involve the deployment to foreign countries of American advisers who will act by strengthening democratization, attracting military and police contingents, civil administrators, providing humanitarian assistance, economic stabilization and infrastructure development. All of these instruments are aimed at strengthening American influence everywhere and are used by Washington through the activities of American advisers dealing working in developing and post-conflict countries. The practice of the U.S. strategic advising and capacity building exists since the 1940s, during the Cold war it was aimed at confrontation with the socialist system. The role of advisers in advancing interests is enormous and ubiquitous: from Ukraine to Syria, from Somalia to Haiti. It is closely related to other instruments of American humanitarian policy: public diplomacy, educational exchanges, development assistance. The transplant of US civil society concepts to foreign countries is doubtful, but meets American goals. The author evaluates US system of strategic advising and capacity building analysing activities of federal ministries and agencies. The hypothesis of the article that Washington would use these instrumwnts more broadly, and theyvwould be oriented more explicitly towards national defence interests. The article includes SWOT analysis of the US system of strategic advising and capacity building.
{"title":"Strategic consulting and capacity building in US humanitarian policy","authors":"A. Velikaya","doi":"10.21638/spbu06.2021.303","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu06.2021.303","url":null,"abstract":"Strategic advising and capacity building are closely interconnected, as they involve the deployment to foreign countries of American advisers who will act by strengthening democratization, attracting military and police contingents, civil administrators, providing humanitarian assistance, economic stabilization and infrastructure development. All of these instruments are aimed at strengthening American influence everywhere and are used by Washington through the activities of American advisers dealing working in developing and post-conflict countries. The practice of the U.S. strategic advising and capacity building exists since the 1940s, during the Cold war it was aimed at confrontation with the socialist system. The role of advisers in advancing interests is enormous and ubiquitous: from Ukraine to Syria, from Somalia to Haiti. It is closely related to other instruments of American humanitarian policy: public diplomacy, educational exchanges, development assistance. The transplant of US civil society concepts to foreign countries is doubtful, but meets American goals. The author evaluates US system of strategic advising and capacity building analysing activities of federal ministries and agencies. The hypothesis of the article that Washington would use these instrumwnts more broadly, and theyvwould be oriented more explicitly towards national defence interests. The article includes SWOT analysis of the US system of strategic advising and capacity building.","PeriodicalId":336122,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. International relations","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127812323","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.21638/spbu06.2023.201
Uri Resnick
The 2020 Abraham Accords normalization agreements between Israel, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan have ushered in a new era in Israeli-Arab relations, setting in motion novel geopolitical dynamics both within the Middle East and radiating further afield to adjacent regions. This development marks a qualitative shift in the way that Israel’s regional integration is perceived by many within the region, with pragmatic, technology-based collaboration, both bilaterally and multilaterally, replacing the widespread acrimony which prevailed in the past. Irenic diplomacy aside, the agreements have produced tangible results in trade, tourism and collaborative technological projects focused on a host of regional development issues. Given the very strong Israeli-Greek-Cypriot “triangular” partnership, recent diplomatic achievements with Turkey and Azerbaijan and the explicit role played by India in some of the new Israeli-Arab multilateral structures, it is no exaggeration to speak of an emerging “crescent of stability” stretching from the Mediterranean, through the Caucasus, Central Asia and India, enveloping — and in many ways containing — the destabilizing influence of Iran. The research objective of the paper is to reveal Israel’s role in the Middle East region, bringing together the micro and macro levels of analysis and exploring how historical events and current developments contribute to Israel’s regional position.
{"title":"Israel in the Middle East: A burgeoning “crescent of stability”","authors":"Uri Resnick","doi":"10.21638/spbu06.2023.201","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu06.2023.201","url":null,"abstract":"The 2020 Abraham Accords normalization agreements between Israel, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan have ushered in a new era in Israeli-Arab relations, setting in motion novel geopolitical dynamics both within the Middle East and radiating further afield to adjacent regions. This development marks a qualitative shift in the way that Israel’s regional integration is perceived by many within the region, with pragmatic, technology-based collaboration, both bilaterally and multilaterally, replacing the widespread acrimony which prevailed in the past. Irenic diplomacy aside, the agreements have produced tangible results in trade, tourism and collaborative technological projects focused on a host of regional development issues. Given the very strong Israeli-Greek-Cypriot “triangular” partnership, recent diplomatic achievements with Turkey and Azerbaijan and the explicit role played by India in some of the new Israeli-Arab multilateral structures, it is no exaggeration to speak of an emerging “crescent of stability” stretching from the Mediterranean, through the Caucasus, Central Asia and India, enveloping — and in many ways containing — the destabilizing influence of Iran. The research objective of the paper is to reveal Israel’s role in the Middle East region, bringing together the micro and macro levels of analysis and exploring how historical events and current developments contribute to Israel’s regional position.","PeriodicalId":336122,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. International relations","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125501606","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.21638/spbu06.2022.107
Julia E. Nikolaeva
This article investigates contemporary Russian and French cultural relations and peculiarities and new formats of cultural interaction between Russia and France. At the beginning of the 21st century, the cultural contacts of these countries were enriched by new interesting forms based on two basic principles: the scale of the event and the dialog principle of its organization. These two new principles could not be better embodied in such a new form of cultural exchange as cultural cross-years, which since 2010 have been regularly included in cultural exchanges between Russia and France. Russia and France have successfully held a cross-year of cultural, linguistic, and literary exchanges, as well as cultural tourism, regional cooperation, etc. Along with the emergence of new forms of Russian and French cultural ties at the beginning of the 21st century, there is a noticeable expansion of their actors, primarily due to the involvement of civil society, regions, and public organizations in the dialog. These actors conduct much work aimed at the decentralization of cultural ties, allowing them to actively develop in the extra-state plane. New ideas are also emerging, such as the twinning not only cities, but also of individual cultural monuments. The pandemic has brought many novel forms and ideas related to the organization of cultural events based on digital, remote, and online technologies into Russian and French cultural ties. This allowed Russia and France to keep cultural ties without significant losses and developing communication under quarantine restrictions. The conclusions drawn by the author of the article allow us to state that sanctions and political differences have not seriously affected Russian and French cultural ties. They proved resilient when faced with the serious challenges brought by the 21st century.
{"title":"Russia and France: Features of cultural dialogue at the beginning of the 21st century","authors":"Julia E. Nikolaeva","doi":"10.21638/spbu06.2022.107","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu06.2022.107","url":null,"abstract":"This article investigates contemporary Russian and French cultural relations and peculiarities and new formats of cultural interaction between Russia and France. At the beginning of the 21st century, the cultural contacts of these countries were enriched by new interesting forms based on two basic principles: the scale of the event and the dialog principle of its organization. These two new principles could not be better embodied in such a new form of cultural exchange as cultural cross-years, which since 2010 have been regularly included in cultural exchanges between Russia and France. Russia and France have successfully held a cross-year of cultural, linguistic, and literary exchanges, as well as cultural tourism, regional cooperation, etc. Along with the emergence of new forms of Russian and French cultural ties at the beginning of the 21st century, there is a noticeable expansion of their actors, primarily due to the involvement of civil society, regions, and public organizations in the dialog. These actors conduct much work aimed at the decentralization of cultural ties, allowing them to actively develop in the extra-state plane. New ideas are also emerging, such as the twinning not only cities, but also of individual cultural monuments. The pandemic has brought many novel forms and ideas related to the organization of cultural events based on digital, remote, and online technologies into Russian and French cultural ties. This allowed Russia and France to keep cultural ties without significant losses and developing communication under quarantine restrictions. The conclusions drawn by the author of the article allow us to state that sanctions and political differences have not seriously affected Russian and French cultural ties. They proved resilient when faced with the serious challenges brought by the 21st century.","PeriodicalId":336122,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. International relations","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134618845","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.21638/11701/spbu06.2019.309
A. Bodrov
{"title":"A new perspective on the role of the Russian Revolution in the process of formation of the Versailles order","authors":"A. Bodrov","doi":"10.21638/11701/spbu06.2019.309","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/spbu06.2019.309","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":336122,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. International relations","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115448498","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.21638/11701/spbu06.2019.301
M. Lebedeva
This article is devoted to the analysis of what political trends, structures and ideas laid down by the results of World War I are reflected in the practice of current world politics. It is shown that at the end of World War I not only the field called “international relations”, with its two classical theories — realism and liberalism—was formed, but also the political organization of the world was significantly changed. Firstly, as a result of the war, the first ever system of international (interstate) relations was formed, Versailles-Washington, which went beyond the limits of the European continent. Secondly, the first universal international organization was created — the League of Nations. All this served as a strong impetus for the imple-mentation of global political ideas and the formation of global governance structures, and later it was developed in the processes of political globalization and the liberal world order, understood as openness, rationality and adherence to common legal norms and standards. At the same time, the article shows that both globalization and the liberal world order are not identical with Westernization or Americanization. Thirdly, as a result of the creation of a socialist state, the Westphalian model of the world was challenged, not only in theoretical terms, but in practical terms. In other words, an attempt was made to build an alternative to the Westphalian model.
{"title":"The end of the First World War: the formation of global intergovernmental structures and global political trends","authors":"M. Lebedeva","doi":"10.21638/11701/spbu06.2019.301","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/spbu06.2019.301","url":null,"abstract":"This article is devoted to the analysis of what political trends, structures and ideas laid down by the results of World War I are reflected in the practice of current world politics. It is shown that at the end of World War I not only the field called “international relations”, with its two classical theories — realism and liberalism—was formed, but also the political organization of the world was significantly changed. Firstly, as a result of the war, the first ever system of international (interstate) relations was formed, Versailles-Washington, which went beyond the limits of the European continent. Secondly, the first universal international organization was created — the League of Nations. All this served as a strong impetus for the imple-mentation of global political ideas and the formation of global governance structures, and later it was developed in the processes of political globalization and the liberal world order, understood as openness, rationality and adherence to common legal norms and standards. At the same time, the article shows that both globalization and the liberal world order are not identical with Westernization or Americanization. Thirdly, as a result of the creation of a socialist state, the Westphalian model of the world was challenged, not only in theoretical terms, but in practical terms. In other words, an attempt was made to build an alternative to the Westphalian model.","PeriodicalId":336122,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. International relations","volume":"64 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114625368","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.21638/11701/SPBU06.2019.402
Feng Yujun
Since Donald Trump took office in early 2017, US—Russian relations have not only failed to “unfreeze,” but have deteriorated even further with continued US sanctions against Russia and increasingly bitter “diplomatic wars,” “media wars,” and intensified geopolitical rivalry in the Middle East. The author of this paper proposes that continuous deterioration of US—Russian relations is not only the result of the disparity of power, mutual misalignment, and the sharp decline of mutual trust between the two countries, but also the result of a strong influence of their respective domestic political factors, reflecting that the US—Russian conflict is accelerating the transition from an exogenous to endogenous one. The paper also argues that for a long time to come, “limited rivalry” will become the “new normal” of US—Russian relations. Against the background of profound adjustment and complex change ability of the international situation, China needs to take a more active and proactive lead in the positive interaction between China, the United States and Russia, avoid further escalation of the competition between the major powers, and jointly deal with the increasingly serious global and regional challenges through the trilateral cooperation between Russia, China and the United States.
{"title":"The US—Russia relations since Trump took office and China’s policy choices","authors":"Feng Yujun","doi":"10.21638/11701/SPBU06.2019.402","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/SPBU06.2019.402","url":null,"abstract":"Since Donald Trump took office in early 2017, US—Russian relations have not only failed to “unfreeze,” but have deteriorated even further with continued US sanctions against Russia and increasingly bitter “diplomatic wars,” “media wars,” and intensified geopolitical rivalry in the Middle East. The author of this paper proposes that continuous deterioration of US—Russian relations is not only the result of the disparity of power, mutual misalignment, and the sharp decline of mutual trust between the two countries, but also the result of a strong influence of their respective domestic political factors, reflecting that the US—Russian conflict is accelerating the transition from an exogenous to endogenous one. The paper also argues that for a long time to come, “limited rivalry” will become the “new normal” of US—Russian relations. Against the background of profound adjustment and complex change ability of the international situation, China needs to take a more active and proactive lead in the positive interaction between China, the United States and Russia, avoid further escalation of the competition between the major powers, and jointly deal with the increasingly serious global and regional challenges through the trilateral cooperation between Russia, China and the United States.","PeriodicalId":336122,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. International relations","volume":"107 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128416325","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.21638/spbu06.2021.404
G. Yarygin
Climate change presents an actorless threat. The most powerful world jurisdictions are undertaking efforts to tackle this global threat multiplier. The Biden-Harris administration, returning the U. S. back to international climate politics, claims the leadership role. The author of the article examines how the administration’s climate rhetoric is backed up organizationally. The institutional architecture that powers Biden’s climate policy is put at the center of the article’s analysis. The United States intelligence community has been entrusted with a significant role in running current U. S. institutional climate recovery efforts. The article approaches the engagement of the intelligence community in climate policy from such angles as policymakers’ expectations of the intelligence community and its role and capabilities for domestic and international collaboration. The article proceeds through three stages. The first stage presents theoretical frameworks for new-institutional analysis approaches to climate policy of the United States. The second examines how the Biden-Harris administration organizes institutions in the system of climate policy. The third approaches the role and functions of the U. S. intelligence community in climate change prevention policy. The author concludes that the U. S. intelligence community possesses a strong capacity to provide for responsible decision making in regard to the climate, however, mechanisms for domestic and international climate intelligence exchange have yet to be determined.
{"title":"U. S. climate institutions and the intelligence community: Domestic and international collaboration","authors":"G. Yarygin","doi":"10.21638/spbu06.2021.404","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu06.2021.404","url":null,"abstract":"Climate change presents an actorless threat. The most powerful world jurisdictions are undertaking efforts to tackle this global threat multiplier. The Biden-Harris administration, returning the U. S. back to international climate politics, claims the leadership role. The author of the article examines how the administration’s climate rhetoric is backed up organizationally. The institutional architecture that powers Biden’s climate policy is put at the center of the article’s analysis. The United States intelligence community has been entrusted with a significant role in running current U. S. institutional climate recovery efforts. The article approaches the engagement of the intelligence community in climate policy from such angles as policymakers’ expectations of the intelligence community and its role and capabilities for domestic and international collaboration. The article proceeds through three stages. The first stage presents theoretical frameworks for new-institutional analysis approaches to climate policy of the United States. The second examines how the Biden-Harris administration organizes institutions in the system of climate policy. The third approaches the role and functions of the U. S. intelligence community in climate change prevention policy. The author concludes that the U. S. intelligence community possesses a strong capacity to provide for responsible decision making in regard to the climate, however, mechanisms for domestic and international climate intelligence exchange have yet to be determined.","PeriodicalId":336122,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. International relations","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131069284","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.21638/spbu06.2021.302
V. Zhuravleva
The article focuses on the debatable issues of Russian-American relations from 1914 until the fall of Tsarism, such as the degree of the two countries’ rapprochement, ethnic questions, the positive dynamics of mutual images and the intensified process of Russians and Americans studying each other. Based on primary and secondary sources, this work intends to emphasize that the conflict element in bilateral relations did not hamper cooperation between the two states. The author’s multipronged and interdisciplinary approach allowed her to conclude that the United Sates was ready to engage in wide-ranging interaction with the Russian Empire regardless of their ideological differences. From the author’s point of view, it was the pragmatic agenda that aided the states’ mutual interest in destroying the stereotypes of their counterpart and stimulated Russian Studies in the US and American Studies in Russia. Therefore, the “honeymoon” between the two states had started long before the 1917 February Revolution. However, Wilson strove to turn Russia not so much into an object of US’ “dollar diplomacy”, but into a destination of its “crusade” for democracy. The collapse of the monarchy provided an additional impetus for liberal internationalism by integrating the Russian “Other” into US foreign policy. Ultimately, an ideological (value-based) approach emerged as a stable trend in structuring America’s attitude toward Russia (be it the Soviet Union or post-Soviet Russia).
{"title":"“Honeymoon” of the Russian Empire and the United States during WWI","authors":"V. Zhuravleva","doi":"10.21638/spbu06.2021.302","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu06.2021.302","url":null,"abstract":"The article focuses on the debatable issues of Russian-American relations from 1914 until the fall of Tsarism, such as the degree of the two countries’ rapprochement, ethnic questions, the positive dynamics of mutual images and the intensified process of Russians and Americans studying each other. Based on primary and secondary sources, this work intends to emphasize that the conflict element in bilateral relations did not hamper cooperation between the two states. The author’s multipronged and interdisciplinary approach allowed her to conclude that the United Sates was ready to engage in wide-ranging interaction with the Russian Empire regardless of their ideological differences. From the author’s point of view, it was the pragmatic agenda that aided the states’ mutual interest in destroying the stereotypes of their counterpart and stimulated Russian Studies in the US and American Studies in Russia. Therefore, the “honeymoon” between the two states had started long before the 1917 February Revolution. However, Wilson strove to turn Russia not so much into an object of US’ “dollar diplomacy”, but into a destination of its “crusade” for democracy. The collapse of the monarchy provided an additional impetus for liberal internationalism by integrating the Russian “Other” into US foreign policy. Ultimately, an ideological (value-based) approach emerged as a stable trend in structuring America’s attitude toward Russia (be it the Soviet Union or post-Soviet Russia).","PeriodicalId":336122,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. International relations","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129308190","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.21638/11701/spbu06.2019.308
E. Khakhalkina, K. Andreev
{"title":"European identity on the example of the southern EU countries in the context of the migration crisis of 2015–2016","authors":"E. Khakhalkina, K. Andreev","doi":"10.21638/11701/spbu06.2019.308","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/spbu06.2019.308","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":336122,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. International relations","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122823385","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.21638/11701/spbu06.2019.404
G. Yarygin
This article presents an analysis of the Russian probe of 2016–2019. The author defines the Russian probe as a complex of investigations originated at different chronological stages by various institutions and communities with regard to Russian meddling in US domestic processes. Distinctive facets of the Russian probe and the varied nature of claims and allegations are reviewed. The author, constituting a two dimensional binary matrix, offers a classification of Russian inquiries based on the chronological characteristics and essence of the case as well as chronology of initiation and institution in charge. The author puts forward and supports a hypothesis stating that the Russian probe is an independent variable of the US political agenda and should not be considered as a byproduct of internal political struggle. The mere personality of the new president, political elite’s rejection of Donald Trump, his Russian contacts, and potential predisposition to Russia does not necessarily stipulate initiation of the Russian probe. The author raises and responds to a set of research questions which include but are not limited to: a) does the Russian probe have an electoral dimension only? b) does it have a pure anti-Trump nature? c) was the Russian probe launched following the US presidential election and ignited by the elections? d) does it have a homogenous institutional architecture? Which means of investigations were initiated and conducted by the same institution or did they have a multi-institutional origin? e) if outcomes of varied investigations do not concur, do they have anything in common? And finally, f) will the Russian probe eliminate all risks and threats of the nature under consideration to the USA? The author comes to a conclusion about the inevitability of the Russian probe no matter which candidate would have won the presidency in 2016 and confirms the inability of investigation results to cope with risks of compromising domestic processes.
{"title":"The many facets of the Russian probe","authors":"G. Yarygin","doi":"10.21638/11701/spbu06.2019.404","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/spbu06.2019.404","url":null,"abstract":"This article presents an analysis of the Russian probe of 2016–2019. The author defines the Russian probe as a complex of investigations originated at different chronological stages by various institutions and communities with regard to Russian meddling in US domestic processes. Distinctive facets of the Russian probe and the varied nature of claims and allegations are reviewed. The author, constituting a two dimensional binary matrix, offers a classification of Russian inquiries based on the chronological characteristics and essence of the case as well as chronology of initiation and institution in charge. The author puts forward and supports a hypothesis stating that the Russian probe is an independent variable of the US political agenda and should not be considered as a byproduct of internal political struggle. The mere personality of the new president, political elite’s rejection of Donald Trump, his Russian contacts, and potential predisposition to Russia does not necessarily stipulate initiation of the Russian probe. The author raises and responds to a set of research questions which include but are not limited to: a) does the Russian probe have an electoral dimension only? b) does it have a pure anti-Trump nature? c) was the Russian probe launched following the US presidential election and ignited by the elections? d) does it have a homogenous institutional architecture? Which means of investigations were initiated and conducted by the same institution or did they have a multi-institutional origin? e) if outcomes of varied investigations do not concur, do they have anything in common? And finally, f) will the Russian probe eliminate all risks and threats of the nature under consideration to the USA? The author comes to a conclusion about the inevitability of the Russian probe no matter which candidate would have won the presidency in 2016 and confirms the inability of investigation results to cope with risks of compromising domestic processes.","PeriodicalId":336122,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. International relations","volume":"2012 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125659326","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：