Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.21638/spbu06.2022.205
L. Alieva, K. Ambartsumyan
The authors of the article address the problem of practical implementation of “soft power” in modern Russian foreign policy. The aim of the research was to understand the role of academic mobility in the development of a positive image of Russia in the world. In this regard, the authors emphasize the inexpediency of understanding science and education as a means of propaganda and ideological response to foreign opponents. Academic mobility is one of the effective channels that allows not only to share the results of research and educational activities, but also, through interpersonal communication in professional communities, to destroy the existing negative stereotypes about Russia. The article provides experience of DAAD as one of the best practices in organizing academic exchanges, and emphasizes the possibility of adapting this experience for Russia. Opposing the statement of J. Nay, German experience has shown the effectiveness of active participation of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in supporting international cooperation in education and research. Taking into account the diversity of regions in the Russian Federation, the authors came to the conclusion that it is necessary to enhance cross-border cooperation with neighboring regions following the policy of “soft power”. As an example, the authors present the experience of North Caucasus Federal University in cooperation with scientific and educational institutions of the South Caucasus. The border position of the North Caucasus region, common historical past of the peoples and common Caucasian identity make NCFU an effective tool for strengthening Russia’s influence in the region, which traditionally becomes an arena of international rivalry. The article also presents the experience of implementing joint projects with European partners, analyzes current trends in the development of European Higher Education Area, and shows the role of academic mobility in the formation of a sustainable, cohesive and peaceful Europe. In this regard, the authors conclude that universities make a significant contribution to the formation of a positive image of Russia as a country with ethnic, cultural, historical, religious and geographical diversity.
{"title":"The role of international academic mobility in strengthening the efficiency of “soft power” policy of modern Russia","authors":"L. Alieva, K. Ambartsumyan","doi":"10.21638/spbu06.2022.205","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu06.2022.205","url":null,"abstract":"The authors of the article address the problem of practical implementation of “soft power” in modern Russian foreign policy. The aim of the research was to understand the role of academic mobility in the development of a positive image of Russia in the world. In this regard, the authors emphasize the inexpediency of understanding science and education as a means of propaganda and ideological response to foreign opponents. Academic mobility is one of the effective channels that allows not only to share the results of research and educational activities, but also, through interpersonal communication in professional communities, to destroy the existing negative stereotypes about Russia. The article provides experience of DAAD as one of the best practices in organizing academic exchanges, and emphasizes the possibility of adapting this experience for Russia. Opposing the statement of J. Nay, German experience has shown the effectiveness of active participation of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in supporting international cooperation in education and research. Taking into account the diversity of regions in the Russian Federation, the authors came to the conclusion that it is necessary to enhance cross-border cooperation with neighboring regions following the policy of “soft power”. As an example, the authors present the experience of North Caucasus Federal University in cooperation with scientific and educational institutions of the South Caucasus. The border position of the North Caucasus region, common historical past of the peoples and common Caucasian identity make NCFU an effective tool for strengthening Russia’s influence in the region, which traditionally becomes an arena of international rivalry. The article also presents the experience of implementing joint projects with European partners, analyzes current trends in the development of European Higher Education Area, and shows the role of academic mobility in the formation of a sustainable, cohesive and peaceful Europe. In this regard, the authors conclude that universities make a significant contribution to the formation of a positive image of Russia as a country with ethnic, cultural, historical, religious and geographical diversity.","PeriodicalId":336122,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. International relations","volume":"12 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":"114913238","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/spbu06.2019.101
Sadri Houman, Аkar Basak
The fall of the Soviet Union prompted a vast amount of political change across the globe. A bipolar global power structure transformed into a unipolar diplomatic one. In the wake of this structural shift, the former Soviet Republics gained independence — along with all its merits and challenges. Great Powers were forced to reassess their relationships under new geopolitical conditions. Meanwhile, the newly formed Central Asian Republics were brought to the forefront of global attention. Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan’s developmental journey is not simply regionally significant, but also globally. Geographical, economic, and political factors make the region pivotal for the Great Powers. Faced with challenges like ethnic, religious, and political conflict; the Great Powers have competed to gain influence in the region. This competition has included both soft and hard power tactics. The scope of this paper is limited to three involved Great Powers in the region: Russia, China, and the United States. Their relationships with the Central Asian states are unique. The diversity of their foreign policy goals, capabilities, and challenges toward Central Asia paint a complex mosaic of international relations. Nevertheless, this analysis will clearly illustrate that these Great Powers have more opportunity for cooperation than just conflict.
{"title":"Russian foreign policy toward the Central Asian Region in comparison to the Chinese and American policies","authors":"Sadri Houman, Аkar Basak","doi":"10.21638/11701/spbu06.2019.101","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/spbu06.2019.101","url":null,"abstract":"The fall of the Soviet Union prompted a vast amount of political change across the globe. A bipolar global power structure transformed into a unipolar diplomatic one. In the wake of this structural shift, the former Soviet Republics gained independence — along with all its merits and challenges. Great Powers were forced to reassess their relationships under new geopolitical conditions. Meanwhile, the newly formed Central Asian Republics were brought to the forefront of global attention. Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan’s developmental journey is not simply regionally significant, but also globally. Geographical, economic, and political factors make the region pivotal for the Great Powers. Faced with challenges like ethnic, religious, and political conflict; the Great Powers have competed to gain influence in the region. This competition has included both soft and hard power tactics. The scope of this paper is limited to three involved Great Powers in the region: Russia, China, and the United States. Their relationships with the Central Asian states are unique. The diversity of their foreign policy goals, capabilities, and challenges toward Central Asia paint a complex mosaic of international relations. Nevertheless, this analysis will clearly illustrate that these Great Powers have more opportunity for cooperation than just conflict.","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":"116856984","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/spbu06.2023.204
A. Fominykh
The paper analyzes the array of information materials and artifacts related to American thematic exhibitions that were held in the Soviet Union by the US Information Agency (USIA) from 1959 to 1991 as part of the Soviet-American agreements on cultural exchanges. The American National Exhibition in Moscow in the summer of 1959 was the first (and most famous) in a series of such exhibitions; it was subsequent by 18 traveling shows, which covered 25 Soviet cities — both Union and republics’ capitals and remote regional centers. The total audience of these showings is estimated at 20 million visitors. American exhibitions in the USSR left behind a deep information and cultural trace in memories, movie and photo chronicles, as well as in a variety of “handouts” and souvenirs distributed at events. Among collectors of antiques of this kind, thematic collections are known as memorabilia, or a collection of things associated with a certain historical figure, a celebrity, or event. These materials, especially the official booklets of the exhibitions, contain valuable information, which reflects not only the content of the showings, but also the political and ideological attitudes of their American organizers. The selection of exhibits, their information support (textual — in booklets, and oral — from guides at the exhibition), the engineering and visual design of the shows — all were aimed, ultimately, at the formation of a positive image of America among the Soviet public (and, as a result, a critical perception of Soviet realities). Thus, the exhibitions, even if their themes seem to be far from the ideology (science and technology, culture, life, industry and agriculture), turned into an effective propaganda tool. Moreover, the USIA was able to use this tool under the terms of agreements on bilateral exhibition exchanges. Unfortunately, visual materials and objects of material culture in general are rarely involved in studies of public and cultural diplomacy as a source. This article aims to fill this gap.
{"title":"Memorabilia of the US thematic exhibits in the USSR as a source for public diplomacy and propaganda studies","authors":"A. Fominykh","doi":"10.21638/spbu06.2023.204","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu06.2023.204","url":null,"abstract":"The paper analyzes the array of information materials and artifacts related to American thematic exhibitions that were held in the Soviet Union by the US Information Agency (USIA) from 1959 to 1991 as part of the Soviet-American agreements on cultural exchanges. The American National Exhibition in Moscow in the summer of 1959 was the first (and most famous) in a series of such exhibitions; it was subsequent by 18 traveling shows, which covered 25 Soviet cities — both Union and republics’ capitals and remote regional centers. The total audience of these showings is estimated at 20 million visitors. American exhibitions in the USSR left behind a deep information and cultural trace in memories, movie and photo chronicles, as well as in a variety of “handouts” and souvenirs distributed at events. Among collectors of antiques of this kind, thematic collections are known as memorabilia, or a collection of things associated with a certain historical figure, a celebrity, or event. These materials, especially the official booklets of the exhibitions, contain valuable information, which reflects not only the content of the showings, but also the political and ideological attitudes of their American organizers. The selection of exhibits, their information support (textual — in booklets, and oral — from guides at the exhibition), the engineering and visual design of the shows — all were aimed, ultimately, at the formation of a positive image of America among the Soviet public (and, as a result, a critical perception of Soviet realities). Thus, the exhibitions, even if their themes seem to be far from the ideology (science and technology, culture, life, industry and agriculture), turned into an effective propaganda tool. Moreover, the USIA was able to use this tool under the terms of agreements on bilateral exhibition exchanges. Unfortunately, visual materials and objects of material culture in general are rarely involved in studies of public and cultural diplomacy as a source. This article aims to fill this gap.","PeriodicalId":336122,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. International relations","volume":"18 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":"129753696","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/spbu06.2019.305
Aleksandra Pećinar
The current geopolitical conditions, in which we unquestionably feel the effects of World War I around us, impose consideration of the unstable situation in place for decades now in the area of the Balkans, provoking thus an interest in the real causes of such an event. The question arises as to why, for example, the former Yugoslavia was, and why even nowadays the unresolved questions in many areas of this region are potentially representing the most malignant conflicts on the planet? When “peacemakers” met in Paris, new nations emerged, and the old empires were dying. An insight into the process of “reconstruction” of this region as part of the diplomatic, military, economic and political processes, in this area of strategic importance for preserving the domination of the Great Powers, could be crucial for making a conclusion. Assuming that some of the most pressing problems of the modern Balkans are rooted in the region’s political inheritance: the arrangements, unities, and divisions imposed by the Allies after the First World War, and in the hope that their deeper and wider understanding could contribute to the healing process in this region, as well in reinforcing human security, we would try to explain how by signing “the peace to end all peace”, the seeds of future developments in this high priority “area of supply and transit” were laid.
{"title":"The Paris Peace Conference — Contemporary Balkans’ perspective","authors":"Aleksandra Pećinar","doi":"10.21638/11701/spbu06.2019.305","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/spbu06.2019.305","url":null,"abstract":"The current geopolitical conditions, in which we unquestionably feel the effects of World War I around us, impose consideration of the unstable situation in place for decades now in the area of the Balkans, provoking thus an interest in the real causes of such an event. The question arises as to why, for example, the former Yugoslavia was, and why even nowadays the unresolved questions in many areas of this region are potentially representing the most malignant conflicts on the planet? When “peacemakers” met in Paris, new nations emerged, and the old empires were dying. An insight into the process of “reconstruction” of this region as part of the diplomatic, military, economic and political processes, in this area of strategic importance for preserving the domination of the Great Powers, could be crucial for making a conclusion. Assuming that some of the most pressing problems of the modern Balkans are rooted in the region’s political inheritance: the arrangements, unities, and divisions imposed by the Allies after the First World War, and in the hope that their deeper and wider understanding could contribute to the healing process in this region, as well in reinforcing human security, we would try to explain how by signing “the peace to end all peace”, the seeds of future developments in this high priority “area of supply and transit” were laid.","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":"129183071","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/spbu06.2022.106
A. Chikhachev
This article examines the state and prospects of Russia-France relations on the basis of preliminary results of Emmanuel Macron’s presidency. The author assumes that the dialogue between these two countries has traditionally been characterized by a certain duality, where close cooperation in various spheres did not exclude mutual contradictions. The analysis of the main examples from bilateral relations in 2017–2021 shows that this feature is still observed at present. On the one hand, cooperation between Moscow and Paris clearly has experienced a revival after the last years of François Hollande’s term, as expresses in constant meetings at the highest level and the restart of ministerial contacts. The French government demonstrates its readiness to discuss a wide range of topics, including European security, strategic stability, conflict resolution in Ukraine and the Middle East, and development of economic and cultural ties. On the other hand, under Macron the list of issues on which both countries hold different positions has continued to grow. Paris negatively perceives the spread of the Kremlin’s international influence; emphasizes the difference in basic values; disagrees with Moscow on priorities of further settlement of regional conflicts, Internet, and space governance; openly criticizes the Russian presence in Africa; and supports Western allies in several political affairs. This kind of duality will likely continue after the 2022 presidential elections in the Fifth Republic, because each of the potential winners, while trying to continue bilateral cooperation, will inevitably have to take into account obligations within the Euro-Atlantic community. At the same time, with the beginning of Russia’s special operation in Ukraine in February 2022, French diplomacy is expected to make focus on toughness rather than dialogue.
{"title":"Russia — France relations under President Emmanuel Macron: Achievements and inconsistencies","authors":"A. Chikhachev","doi":"10.21638/spbu06.2022.106","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu06.2022.106","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the state and prospects of Russia-France relations on the basis of preliminary results of Emmanuel Macron’s presidency. The author assumes that the dialogue between these two countries has traditionally been characterized by a certain duality, where close cooperation in various spheres did not exclude mutual contradictions. The analysis of the main examples from bilateral relations in 2017–2021 shows that this feature is still observed at present. On the one hand, cooperation between Moscow and Paris clearly has experienced a revival after the last years of François Hollande’s term, as expresses in constant meetings at the highest level and the restart of ministerial contacts. The French government demonstrates its readiness to discuss a wide range of topics, including European security, strategic stability, conflict resolution in Ukraine and the Middle East, and development of economic and cultural ties. On the other hand, under Macron the list of issues on which both countries hold different positions has continued to grow. Paris negatively perceives the spread of the Kremlin’s international influence; emphasizes the difference in basic values; disagrees with Moscow on priorities of further settlement of regional conflicts, Internet, and space governance; openly criticizes the Russian presence in Africa; and supports Western allies in several political affairs. This kind of duality will likely continue after the 2022 presidential elections in the Fifth Republic, because each of the potential winners, while trying to continue bilateral cooperation, will inevitably have to take into account obligations within the Euro-Atlantic community. At the same time, with the beginning of Russia’s special operation in Ukraine in February 2022, French diplomacy is expected to make focus on toughness rather than dialogue.","PeriodicalId":336122,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. International relations","volume":"28 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":"125448839","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/spbu06.2020.105
Y. Kolotaev
The emergence of phenomena such as fake news, alternative facts, and new wave populism have resulted in a new pressing problem for most modern democracies in the Western world. They have stressed a conceptual shift within the social tendencies and processes, which has resulted in the creation of a post-truth world. The main characteristics of such phenomena can be described as the transition from an evidence-based, normative and factual discourse to an emotional, post-factual and populistic one. The reason for this can be found in the psychological and technical dimensions of contemporary society. A synthesis of postmodernist logic of falling metanarratives, with the spread of social media, altered the nature of the truth and the lie. In this context, the changes in European politics at the supranational level became particularly important. The threat of populism, which uses the post-truth discourse in its favour, has forced the EU to elaborate on a set of mechanisms to overcome the negative effects of fake news and disinformation. Meanwhile, the main idea of how to tackle the phenomena of the post-truth world is based on the principle of societal resilience. An adaptive environment towards stressful influence on the Union is nowadays the global aim of the EU and it became particularly important right before the 2019 European parliament elections. This research will provide an analysis of the preliminary and preparatory measures that had been undertaken by the EU and a more general overview of the EU’s capacity to resist post-truth.
{"title":"European Union in the age of post-truth: Developing societal resilience before European Parliament elections 2019","authors":"Y. Kolotaev","doi":"10.21638/spbu06.2020.105","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu06.2020.105","url":null,"abstract":"The emergence of phenomena such as fake news, alternative facts, and new wave populism have resulted in a new pressing problem for most modern democracies in the Western world. They have stressed a conceptual shift within the social tendencies and processes, which has resulted in the creation of a post-truth world. The main characteristics of such phenomena can be described as the transition from an evidence-based, normative and factual discourse to an emotional, post-factual and populistic one. The reason for this can be found in the psychological and technical dimensions of contemporary society. A synthesis of postmodernist logic of falling metanarratives, with the spread of social media, altered the nature of the truth and the lie. In this context, the changes in European politics at the supranational level became particularly important. The threat of populism, which uses the post-truth discourse in its favour, has forced the EU to elaborate on a set of mechanisms to overcome the negative effects of fake news and disinformation. Meanwhile, the main idea of how to tackle the phenomena of the post-truth world is based on the principle of societal resilience. An adaptive environment towards stressful influence on the Union is nowadays the global aim of the EU and it became particularly important right before the 2019 European parliament elections. This research will provide an analysis of the preliminary and preparatory measures that had been undertaken by the EU and a more general overview of the EU’s capacity to resist post-truth.","PeriodicalId":336122,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. International relations","volume":"2 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":"128537731","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/spbu06.2022.103
D. Shmelev
The constant presence of the extreme left in media space and its active political role in the life of modern France contribute to the development and presentation of its own foreign policy project to voters. One of its brightest representatives is the “La France insoumise” movement and its leader J.-L. Mélenchon, author of several books, mastermind of the Internet platform and personal blog, and presidential candidate. The program of “La France insoumise” is mainly addressed to domestic political problems. However, it contains analyses and proposals about the most relevant aspects of foreign policy, combined under the conditional name “altermondialist project.” In the foreign policy program of “La France insoumise,” three important aspects can be distinguished, which this article explores: attitudes to the functioning and basic principles of the European Union, geopolitics, and the place of France in the modern world, “political Francophonie.” Attention to these problems stems from the specifics of left-wing political culture, the traditional attention of the left to the problems of European integration, colonialism, democracy, and human rights. At the same time, in Mélenchon’s program we see references from the Gaullist heritage and foreign policy experience of the Fifth Republic. Mélenchon’s “altermondialism” does not imply the renunciation of national sovereignty or the nation-state, just as it recognizes the inevitability of globalization. In the spirit of the extreme left, he criticizes its neoliberal version, offering his own version of world reconstruction. The published policy documents and brochures of “La France insoumise,” as well as interviews and reflections of its leader, allow us to build a complete picture of an alternative foreign policy program of the extreme left, which was originally presented at the presidential elections in 2012 and 2017, and then, in an updated version, was prepared for the upcoming presidential elections in 2022.
{"title":"The extreme left and foreign policy: The “Altermondialist project” by J.-L. Mélenchon","authors":"D. Shmelev","doi":"10.21638/spbu06.2022.103","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu06.2022.103","url":null,"abstract":"The constant presence of the extreme left in media space and its active political role in the life of modern France contribute to the development and presentation of its own foreign policy project to voters. One of its brightest representatives is the “La France insoumise” movement and its leader J.-L. Mélenchon, author of several books, mastermind of the Internet platform and personal blog, and presidential candidate. The program of “La France insoumise” is mainly addressed to domestic political problems. However, it contains analyses and proposals about the most relevant aspects of foreign policy, combined under the conditional name “altermondialist project.” In the foreign policy program of “La France insoumise,” three important aspects can be distinguished, which this article explores: attitudes to the functioning and basic principles of the European Union, geopolitics, and the place of France in the modern world, “political Francophonie.” Attention to these problems stems from the specifics of left-wing political culture, the traditional attention of the left to the problems of European integration, colonialism, democracy, and human rights. At the same time, in Mélenchon’s program we see references from the Gaullist heritage and foreign policy experience of the Fifth Republic. Mélenchon’s “altermondialism” does not imply the renunciation of national sovereignty or the nation-state, just as it recognizes the inevitability of globalization. In the spirit of the extreme left, he criticizes its neoliberal version, offering his own version of world reconstruction. The published policy documents and brochures of “La France insoumise,” as well as interviews and reflections of its leader, allow us to build a complete picture of an alternative foreign policy program of the extreme left, which was originally presented at the presidential elections in 2012 and 2017, and then, in an updated version, was prepared for the upcoming presidential elections in 2022.","PeriodicalId":336122,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. International relations","volume":"45 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":"125616398","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/spbu06.2021.207
Sergey Yun, V. Pakulin
The Belt and Road initiative (BRI) is a large-scale geo-economic project which is an integral part of China’s contemporary foreign policy. The foundation of this project is the vast network of trade and transport communications by land and sea that encompasses countries of the Eurasian continent as well as Africa. The European destination is a key link of the project: most of the transit ways of the BRI lead to the EU and European countries. The Central and Eastern Europe region (CEE) occupies a special place in China’s strategy of the implementation of the Belt and Road initiative: the countries of this region are located on the main trade routes from China to the most developed European countries. Moreover, the CEE countries are in dire need of investment and infrastructure development. In 2012 China launched a multilateral cooperation mechanism with 16 CEE countries (in 2019 the number of participants increased to 17 due to the accession of Greece). This article aims at analyzing the structure and functioning of the mechanism, key areas of activity within the framework of the Belt and Road initiative, and the problems and prospects of cooperation between China and the CEE countries. The main hypothesis of the work is that China uses the ‘17 + 1’ mechanism as a tool for establishing bilateral cooperation with selected countries of the region. Such an approach evokes criticism from the CEE states, as well as EU institutions. The current situation shows that China needs to make adjustments to its strategy for the implementation of the BRI initiative in the region. The authors used legislation and materials from official websites of EU institutions, China and the CEE countries’ government agencies, statistical data and analytical papers by international organizations, as well as material from news agencies.
{"title":"Cooperation between China and Central and Eastern European states within the framework of the Belt and Road Initiative and the ‘17+1’ mechanism","authors":"Sergey Yun, V. Pakulin","doi":"10.21638/spbu06.2021.207","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu06.2021.207","url":null,"abstract":"The Belt and Road initiative (BRI) is a large-scale geo-economic project which is an integral part of China’s contemporary foreign policy. The foundation of this project is the vast network of trade and transport communications by land and sea that encompasses countries of the Eurasian continent as well as Africa. The European destination is a key link of the project: most of the transit ways of the BRI lead to the EU and European countries. The Central and Eastern Europe region (CEE) occupies a special place in China’s strategy of the implementation of the Belt and Road initiative: the countries of this region are located on the main trade routes from China to the most developed European countries. Moreover, the CEE countries are in dire need of investment and infrastructure development. In 2012 China launched a multilateral cooperation mechanism with 16 CEE countries (in 2019 the number of participants increased to 17 due to the accession of Greece). This article aims at analyzing the structure and functioning of the mechanism, key areas of activity within the framework of the Belt and Road initiative, and the problems and prospects of cooperation between China and the CEE countries. The main hypothesis of the work is that China uses the ‘17 + 1’ mechanism as a tool for establishing bilateral cooperation with selected countries of the region. Such an approach evokes criticism from the CEE states, as well as EU institutions. The current situation shows that China needs to make adjustments to its strategy for the implementation of the BRI initiative in the region. The authors used legislation and materials from official websites of EU institutions, China and the CEE countries’ government agencies, statistical data and analytical papers by international organizations, as well as material from news agencies.","PeriodicalId":336122,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. International relations","volume":"31 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":"134221382","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/spbu06.2019.105
{"title":"“Resilience” in the official rhetoric of the People’s Republic of China","authors":"","doi":"10.21638/11701/spbu06.2019.105","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/spbu06.2019.105","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":336122,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. International relations","volume":"37 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":"132755803","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/SPBU06.2019.403
N. Tsvetkova
Among the numerous discussions of US international broadcasting, the regional dimension in terms of American projects in Russia and its neighboring states are rarely given explicit consideration. The paper reviews the strategies, projects, and their results in connection with US international broadcasting towards Russia and, more broadly, towards Eastern Europe and the post-Soviet space. The first section reviews the shifts in US international broadcasting during the period of 2013–2016, when the administration of Barack Obama introduced new strategies and projects to engage the Russian audience through US international media. The second section demonstrates how the sanctions imposed against Moscow and investigations about the possible Russian impact on elections in both United States and Europe have modified international broadcasting in terms of introducing a new deterrence policy during the period of 2017–2019. The paper concludes that the United States has gained some success in reaching the Russian-speaking populations through international broadcasting and, moreover, its datadriven digital diplomacy has brought some results in containing Russia’s informational activities in Eastern Europe, Balkan region, and post-Soviet countries. While the administration of Barack Obama conducted the policy of engagement towards the Russian-speaking world, the first administration of Donald Trump is pursing the policy of deterrence.
{"title":"Dealing with a resurgent Russia: Engagement and deterrence in US international broadcasting, 2013–2019","authors":"N. Tsvetkova","doi":"10.21638/11701/SPBU06.2019.403","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/SPBU06.2019.403","url":null,"abstract":"Among the numerous discussions of US international broadcasting, the regional dimension in terms of American projects in Russia and its neighboring states are rarely given explicit consideration. The paper reviews the strategies, projects, and their results in connection with US international broadcasting towards Russia and, more broadly, towards Eastern Europe and the post-Soviet space. The first section reviews the shifts in US international broadcasting during the period of 2013–2016, when the administration of Barack Obama introduced new strategies and projects to engage the Russian audience through US international media. The second section demonstrates how the sanctions imposed against Moscow and investigations about the possible Russian impact on elections in both United States and Europe have modified international broadcasting in terms of introducing a new deterrence policy during the period of 2017–2019. The paper concludes that the United States has gained some success in reaching the Russian-speaking populations through international broadcasting and, moreover, its datadriven digital diplomacy has brought some results in containing Russia’s informational activities in Eastern Europe, Balkan region, and post-Soviet countries. While the administration of Barack Obama conducted the policy of engagement towards the Russian-speaking world, the first administration of Donald Trump is pursing the policy of deterrence.","PeriodicalId":336122,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. International relations","volume":"104 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":"115770084","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：