Search

Russia is one of the main extra-regional actors that plays a role between India and Pakistan, two states that have been in a state of enduring conflict in Southeast Asia. Although Moscow's policy was to side with India during the Cold War, it began to pursue a middle-way approach between the two actors in the Post-Cold War era. It is the aim of this paper to examine the reasons for the shift in Moscow's approach through the method of pr ocess tracing. An analysis of Russia's Southeast Asia policy also requires focusing on how Russian foreign policy was affected by the systemic transformation caused by the end of the Cold War. Indeed, an analysis of why Moscow began to pursue a more flexible and pragmatic foreign policy after the Cold War helps make sense of its policy towards Southeast Asia. Different from the Cold War phase, Russia has stayed away from the bloc -politics approach and set out to diversify its foreign policy. And, this accounts for the pragmatic and versatile foreign policy Russia began to pursue along the India-Pakistan axis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The disintegration of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) has substantially changed the shape of the international environment. The role of the world power shaping international relations fell to the United States. Undoubtedly, it was a result of the triumph in the Cold War rivalry. The Russian Federation, the successor of the USSR, found itself in a diametrically opposite position. It faced the challenge of determining its place in the new international reality. Due to its political and economic weakness, it was doomed to build this position in cooperation with the West. This article deals with the relations between the Russian Federation and the West in the years 1991-2014. The author aims to identify factors shaping those relations and describe the mutual relations, focusing on key events. The study carried out confirms that the mutual Russian-Western relations over the years were characterized by both successes and failures, which, regardless of their character, shaped these relations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present paper aims at analyzing the cultural dialogue in the post-Cold War era, the Cold War being perceived as a security dilemma. The study makes a clear-cut distinction between the political differences regarding the United States of America and Russia laying emphasis upon concepts, such as: security and risk. This work tries to highlight if the cultural dialogue between the United States and Russia is a failure or a success. Another important issue is diplomacy related to the Soviet ideology and the American response. The concept of power is of paramount importance being viewed as a cultural device in the post-Cold War era. Politics is presented as an instrument of power. Both the United States and Russia fought to be the most powerful nations having the power to rule the world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the reign of Peter the Great, Russia has identified itself in opposition to Europe. In the late 1980s, Michael Gorbachev and associates forged a liberal representation of Europe and initiated a Western-oriented foreign policy. Against this westernizing or liberal representation of Europe stood what was at first a makeshift group of old Communists and right-wing nationalists, who put forward an alternative representation that began to congeal around the idea that the quintessentially Russian trait was to have a strong state. This article traces how this latter position consolidated into a full-fledged xenophobic nationalist representation of Europe, which marginalized first other forms of nationalism and then, particularly since 2013, liberal representations of Europe. The official Russian stance is now that Russia itself is True Europe, a conservative great power that guards Europe's true Christian heritage against the False Europe of decadence and depravity to its west. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]