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/spbu06.2022.107
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/spbu06.2021.206
Y. Kolotaev, Konrad Kollnig
Social media platforms are today one of the primary means of political expression and campaigning. The growing entanglement of politics with the online sphere raises interest in how these new types of media shape the social and political reality. While previous research tends to focus on Twitter and Facebook, limited works exists on the political influence of YouTube. This is even though YouTube is the second-most visited website and provides unique ways of engaging users and disseminating political messages through the combination of rich communication functionality with immersive audio-visual media content. Unfortunately, the influence of social media platforms such as YouTube on politics is difficult to analyse, due a lack of transparency and qualitative data. Independent researchers and the public have limited ways to access meaningful statistics about the video service. This article derives a taxonomy to classify YouTube’s ways of political influence from a case-study-driven analysis of YouTube in the European political landscape. Our taxonomy aligns with traditional theoretical concepts from media effects theory, particularly framing, priming and agenda-setting. We provide a brief discussion of the current regulatory landscape in the EU, and highlight gaps that might need improvement. We conclude by considering the question of whether YouTube is a political actor.
{"title":"Political Influence of Online Platforms: YouTube’s Place in European Politics","authors":"Y. Kolotaev, Konrad Kollnig","doi":"10.21638/spbu06.2021.206","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu06.2021.206","url":null,"abstract":"Social media platforms are today one of the primary means of political expression and campaigning. The growing entanglement of politics with the online sphere raises interest in how these new types of media shape the social and political reality. While previous research tends to focus on Twitter and Facebook, limited works exists on the political influence of YouTube. This is even though YouTube is the second-most visited website and provides unique ways of engaging users and disseminating political messages through the combination of rich communication functionality with immersive audio-visual media content. Unfortunately, the influence of social media platforms such as YouTube on politics is difficult to analyse, due a lack of transparency and qualitative data. Independent researchers and the public have limited ways to access meaningful statistics about the video service. This article derives a taxonomy to classify YouTube’s ways of political influence from a case-study-driven analysis of YouTube in the European political landscape. Our taxonomy aligns with traditional theoretical concepts from media effects theory, particularly framing, priming and agenda-setting. We provide a brief discussion of the current regulatory landscape in the EU, and highlight gaps that might need improvement. We conclude by considering the question of whether YouTube is a political actor.","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":"122397819","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/spbu06.2019.302
I. Magadeev
{"title":"The “images of Versailles” and the transformations of international relations in Europe after 1989–1990: views of Western European and US experts","authors":"I. Magadeev","doi":"10.21638/11701/spbu06.2019.302","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/spbu06.2019.302","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":336122,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. International relations","volume":"310 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":"122426619","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/spbu06.2022.203
E. Zinovieva, Inna O. Yanikeeva
In November 2021, Russia and the United States submitted a draft joint resolution on international information security to the UNGA First Committee, which was a significant victory for Russian diplomacy in the formation of an international information security regime. For a long time, Russian-American relations in the field of international information security have been developing on the basis of a confrontational model, while these two states are the most active actors in the global information sphere. The general trends in the formation of an international information security regime depend on the nature of relations between countries. The article presents a historical analysis of cooperation between Moscow and Washington in the digital environment and assesses the impact of the historical experience of interaction on the prospects for the development of bilateral cooperation in the field of international information security. Methodologically, the authors base the research from the theory of defensive realism, according to which the factor of perception of the priority of threats to international information security is an important factor in bilateral interaction. The more significant threats are perceived from the point of view of national security, the more likely is the development and deepening of international cooperation aimed at shaping the rules of conduct in this area. The article examines the evolution of threats to international information security in historical retrospect. Based on the perception of the priority of threats, the evolution of the formats of bilateral interaction in the field of international information security is shown. It has been proved that the perception of the priority of threats in the field of international information security contributes to the development and deepening of bilateral cooperation, which in the future can develop into a full-fledged regime of international information security, based on the rules of responsible behavior of states in the global information space.
{"title":"Evolution of the US — Russia relations in the area of international information security: A retrospective study","authors":"E. Zinovieva, Inna O. Yanikeeva","doi":"10.21638/spbu06.2022.203","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu06.2022.203","url":null,"abstract":"In November 2021, Russia and the United States submitted a draft joint resolution on international information security to the UNGA First Committee, which was a significant victory for Russian diplomacy in the formation of an international information security regime. For a long time, Russian-American relations in the field of international information security have been developing on the basis of a confrontational model, while these two states are the most active actors in the global information sphere. The general trends in the formation of an international information security regime depend on the nature of relations between countries. The article presents a historical analysis of cooperation between Moscow and Washington in the digital environment and assesses the impact of the historical experience of interaction on the prospects for the development of bilateral cooperation in the field of international information security. Methodologically, the authors base the research from the theory of defensive realism, according to which the factor of perception of the priority of threats to international information security is an important factor in bilateral interaction. The more significant threats are perceived from the point of view of national security, the more likely is the development and deepening of international cooperation aimed at shaping the rules of conduct in this area. The article examines the evolution of threats to international information security in historical retrospect. Based on the perception of the priority of threats, the evolution of the formats of bilateral interaction in the field of international information security is shown. It has been proved that the perception of the priority of threats in the field of international information security contributes to the development and deepening of bilateral cooperation, which in the future can develop into a full-fledged regime of international information security, based on the rules of responsible behavior of states in the global information space.","PeriodicalId":336122,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. International relations","volume":"42 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":"123019070","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/spbu06.2019.210
N. Tsvetkova
{"title":"Why Yalta-Potsdam order has not been revised?","authors":"N. Tsvetkova","doi":"10.21638/11701/spbu06.2019.210","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/spbu06.2019.210","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":336122,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. International relations","volume":"48 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":"128599461","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/spbu06.2019.104
N. Gudalov
Resilience is an increasingly popular concept used to explore how systems respond to various challenges. It has been actively used in International Relations. Here, resilience has been analyzed in predominantly postmodernist terms. Yet, I take resilience-thinking, as explored by one of its leading scholars, David Chandler, and show that it has some affinities with political realism, understood, contra stereotypes, as a complex tradition of political reflection. I also apply the insights gained to the recent overarching turn to resilience in the EU’s external action. The article demonstrates that the novel stress of resilience-thinking on the complexity of the contemporary world is very important, but that it is useful to contextualize it and relate it, if in part, to the age-old concerns of the realist tradition, and to identify similar strengths and problems in both approaches. Both resilience-thinking and realism have drawn our attention to the plural aspect of politics. However, they may face problems concerning elements of relativism, a claim to know the ‘reality’ best, the use of fixed categories, irresponsibility, and the reification of an understanding of reality as a permanent crisis. All these strengths and problems will likely play out in the EU’s external action and even its internal development.
{"title":"David Chandler’s analysis of resilience-thinking and political realism in international relation","authors":"N. Gudalov","doi":"10.21638/11701/spbu06.2019.104","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/spbu06.2019.104","url":null,"abstract":"Resilience is an increasingly popular concept used to explore how systems respond to various challenges. It has been actively used in International Relations. Here, resilience has been analyzed in predominantly postmodernist terms. Yet, I take resilience-thinking, as explored by one of its leading scholars, David Chandler, and show that it has some affinities with political realism, understood, contra stereotypes, as a complex tradition of political reflection. I also apply the insights gained to the recent overarching turn to resilience in the EU’s external action. The article demonstrates that the novel stress of resilience-thinking on the complexity of the contemporary world is very important, but that it is useful to contextualize it and relate it, if in part, to the age-old concerns of the realist tradition, and to identify similar strengths and problems in both approaches. Both resilience-thinking and realism have drawn our attention to the plural aspect of politics. However, they may face problems concerning elements of relativism, a claim to know the ‘reality’ best, the use of fixed categories, irresponsibility, and the reification of an understanding of reality as a permanent crisis. All these strengths and problems will likely play out in the EU’s external action and even its internal development.","PeriodicalId":336122,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. International relations","volume":"92 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":"115630926","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/spbu06.2021.407
P. Buijs
This case study describes activities from the Dutch Association for Medical Polemology (IPPNW- affiliate NVMP-Physicians for Peace) from 1969 onwards, focused primarily on recent strategies, employed by civil society, to influence Dutch policies regarding the urgency of abolishing nuclear weapons due to their unacceptable medical and humanitarian consequences. By itself and together with other civil society organisations, NVMP promoted an active Dutch nuclear disarmament policy, specifically regarding the Non-Proliferation Treaty with its Article- VI Global Zero-obligations, and the United Nations’ Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). Several achievements of the NVMP are highlighted, from the Medical Appeal (2015) to the 50th anniversary Congress (Hague Peace Palace, November 26, 2019) and its aftermath. After presenting his major findings and conclusions, the author shares some experience- based, policy-oriented recommendations about the specific physicians’ position and their medical-humanitarian message, followed by suggestions on strategies for reaching out to politicians, decision-makers, and statesmen that can help IPPNW affiliates elsewhere, and other civil society organizations, who are promoting a nuclear weapon-free world. Finally, the author petitions to repeat successful early 1980s Russian-American IPPNW initiatives, which were directly aimed at their political leaders. The article concludes with the presentation of one initiative.
{"title":"How physicians influenced Dutch nuclear weapon policies: A civil society case-study","authors":"P. Buijs","doi":"10.21638/spbu06.2021.407","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu06.2021.407","url":null,"abstract":"This case study describes activities from the Dutch Association for Medical Polemology (IPPNW- affiliate NVMP-Physicians for Peace) from 1969 onwards, focused primarily on recent strategies, employed by civil society, to influence Dutch policies regarding the urgency of abolishing nuclear weapons due to their unacceptable medical and humanitarian consequences. By itself and together with other civil society organisations, NVMP promoted an active Dutch nuclear disarmament policy, specifically regarding the Non-Proliferation Treaty with its Article- VI Global Zero-obligations, and the United Nations’ Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). Several achievements of the NVMP are highlighted, from the Medical Appeal (2015) to the 50th anniversary Congress (Hague Peace Palace, November 26, 2019) and its aftermath. After presenting his major findings and conclusions, the author shares some experience- based, policy-oriented recommendations about the specific physicians’ position and their medical-humanitarian message, followed by suggestions on strategies for reaching out to politicians, decision-makers, and statesmen that can help IPPNW affiliates elsewhere, and other civil society organizations, who are promoting a nuclear weapon-free world. Finally, the author petitions to repeat successful early 1980s Russian-American IPPNW initiatives, which were directly aimed at their political leaders. The article concludes with the presentation of one initiative.","PeriodicalId":336122,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. International relations","volume":"30 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":"126603089","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/spbu06.2022.402
Lizhi Qin
The main challenge for Russia in the post-Cold War era is that the geographical space available for strategic autonomy has been greatly compressed. Due to the checks and balances of Western powers, the security panic of neighboring countries, and the decline of its own strength after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, it is difficult to maintain the Strategic control model. Russia is torn between imperial historical traditions and nation-state strategic narratives. Will Russia return to the imperial age? The investigation of the geopolitical mechanism of Russian strategic culture is helpful to study and judge its regular behavior pattern. Continental identity, flanking position, and terrestrial claim tradition are three variables which have shaped Russia’s strategic culture. At the same time, the pursuit of sea power, the yearning for modernization in the heartland, and the wise shrinking of tough external forces have verified the logic that Russia’s strategic culture will be adjust dynamically with the change of relative power status and strategic environment. Russian strategic culture shapes strategic motivation dominated by fear and exerts indirect and nonlinear influence on strategic behavior including strategic intention. Risk aversion/risk-taking, the two decision-making preferences for dealing with geopolitical risks, are caused by differences in the degree of fear of power status and the external environment. Through the historical practice of Russian strategic culture investigation, the author believes that: if the current and future development trends show a negative expected trend, then Russia will make necessary revisions to the existing historical experience to suit the current strategic situation. The process-tracking study of Russian imperial history since Peter the Great also verifies the theoretical inferences of this study from case studies. The study of Russian strategic culture will help to promote the deepening and expansion of cooperation between China and Russia. Although the cooperation between the two countries started from the geopolitical pressure of the global strategic offensive of the United States, the beneficial dialogue and communication at the strategic and cultural level can transcend the historical normalcy of the cooperation between the two countries forced by the external geopolitical threats and shape the strategic stability of China and Russia.
{"title":"The geopolitical origins of Russian strategic culture and its enlightenment in China","authors":"Lizhi Qin","doi":"10.21638/spbu06.2022.402","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu06.2022.402","url":null,"abstract":"The main challenge for Russia in the post-Cold War era is that the geographical space available for strategic autonomy has been greatly compressed. Due to the checks and balances of Western powers, the security panic of neighboring countries, and the decline of its own strength after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, it is difficult to maintain the Strategic control model. Russia is torn between imperial historical traditions and nation-state strategic narratives. Will Russia return to the imperial age? The investigation of the geopolitical mechanism of Russian strategic culture is helpful to study and judge its regular behavior pattern. Continental identity, flanking position, and terrestrial claim tradition are three variables which have shaped Russia’s strategic culture. At the same time, the pursuit of sea power, the yearning for modernization in the heartland, and the wise shrinking of tough external forces have verified the logic that Russia’s strategic culture will be adjust dynamically with the change of relative power status and strategic environment. Russian strategic culture shapes strategic motivation dominated by fear and exerts indirect and nonlinear influence on strategic behavior including strategic intention. Risk aversion/risk-taking, the two decision-making preferences for dealing with geopolitical risks, are caused by differences in the degree of fear of power status and the external environment. Through the historical practice of Russian strategic culture investigation, the author believes that: if the current and future development trends show a negative expected trend, then Russia will make necessary revisions to the existing historical experience to suit the current strategic situation. The process-tracking study of Russian imperial history since Peter the Great also verifies the theoretical inferences of this study from case studies. The study of Russian strategic culture will help to promote the deepening and expansion of cooperation between China and Russia. Although the cooperation between the two countries started from the geopolitical pressure of the global strategic offensive of the United States, the beneficial dialogue and communication at the strategic and cultural level can transcend the historical normalcy of the cooperation between the two countries forced by the external geopolitical threats and shape the strategic stability of China and Russia.","PeriodicalId":336122,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. International relations","volume":"101 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":"127191027","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/spbu06.2021.401
S. Tkachenko, Natalia Zhiglinskaya Wyrsch, Zheng Cui
Decoupling, defined as the deliberate and state-directed severing of economic ties between the world’s two largest economies (the USA and China), is one of the most studied phenomena of contemporary international relations. The growing confrontation between the political systems and military machines of the United States and China extends into the economic sphere and increasingly affects the field of high technology. A number of experts consider the conflict of the modern superpowers for the leading position in the field of the new technologies as a manifestation of techno-nationalism, a new type of mercantilism that plays a key role in industrial policy and world trade of the leading economies of the planet. The article is focused on the new generation of interstate conflict, in which the technological giants act as proxy institutions of U. S. and Chinese state power. The distinctive feature of this new type of conflict is its overtly nonviolent nature. It manifests itself in the use by both sides of tools borrowed from economic sanctions and trade wars of the past. The China — US rivalry in the development and implementation of the latest technologies is a non-military reincarnation of the thermonuclear arms race of the Cold War era. Nowadays the most economically powerful states of the planet, led by the USA, choose instruments of economic coercion to protect the existing status quo in the global system. Such measures allow them to adapt elements of the arms race and power rivalry of past eras to modern conditions.
{"title":"Technology platform competition between the United States and China: Decoupling and sanctions against Huawei","authors":"S. Tkachenko, Natalia Zhiglinskaya Wyrsch, Zheng Cui","doi":"10.21638/spbu06.2021.401","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu06.2021.401","url":null,"abstract":"Decoupling, defined as the deliberate and state-directed severing of economic ties between the world’s two largest economies (the USA and China), is one of the most studied phenomena of contemporary international relations. The growing confrontation between the political systems and military machines of the United States and China extends into the economic sphere and increasingly affects the field of high technology. A number of experts consider the conflict of the modern superpowers for the leading position in the field of the new technologies as a manifestation of techno-nationalism, a new type of mercantilism that plays a key role in industrial policy and world trade of the leading economies of the planet. The article is focused on the new generation of interstate conflict, in which the technological giants act as proxy institutions of U. S. and Chinese state power. The distinctive feature of this new type of conflict is its overtly nonviolent nature. It manifests itself in the use by both sides of tools borrowed from economic sanctions and trade wars of the past. The China — US rivalry in the development and implementation of the latest technologies is a non-military reincarnation of the thermonuclear arms race of the Cold War era. Nowadays the most economically powerful states of the planet, led by the USA, choose instruments of economic coercion to protect the existing status quo in the global system. Such measures allow them to adapt elements of the arms race and power rivalry of past eras to modern conditions.","PeriodicalId":336122,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. International relations","volume":"26 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":"134219093","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：