U.S.-Russia Relations in the Putin Era

Paper Summary:

This study aims at an understanding of Russian foreign policy regarding the United States of America after the collapse of the Soviet Union, particularly during Vladimir Putin's two mandates as President of Russia. In the first chapter, the writer provides a theoretical framework for the analysis of Putin's foreign policy in relation to the West as a whole, and the United States in particular, and argues that Russia has applied the international relations theory of "offensive realism," in its foreign policy, with the goal of achieving regional hegemony even after the dismemberment of the Soviet Union. In the second chapter, the writer examines the differences between Soviet and Russian foreign policy up to 1999, a largely liberal period, thanks to Russian Prime Minister Andrey Kozyrev, who followed in Gorbachev's footsteps and tried to emphasize the differences between Russia's new direction and the old Soviet order. This chapter gives an overview of the political, social and economic circumstances in which Vladimir Putin became President of Russia. The third chapter investigates the new direction that Putin set in his foreign policy, after his 2000 campaign success, which was largely based on his slogans, "Great Russia," and "Strong Russian Statehood." Russian foreign relations embarked on a new path in the sense that, for the first time in the post-Soviet era, foreign policies were no longer focused on the United States, but on Europe, with Putin openly supporting a non-isolationist position in the autumn of 2001. This chapter strives to shed light on why Russia has opposed America at the international level, which in turn, explains the reasons behind Putin's direction in foreign policy.

Outline:
Introduction
Russia's "Offensive Realism"
The Birth of Russian Foreign Policy
Russian Foreign Policy: 2000-2008
Final Remarks

From the Paper:

"The third set of foreign policy ideas was represented by the pragmatic nationalists. They also strove to define Russian national identity. They claimed that Russia was defined linguistically so they argued that in order to have a Russian identity, all Russian-speakers in the near abroad states had to be protected. To some extent, they placed themselves between the liberal westernists and the fundamentalist nationalists in the sense that they subscribed to a number of provisions from both sides. For instance, pragmatic nationalists believed that the Soviet past of Russia was to be accepted, and that the dismemberment of the Union was a negative event; also, they argued that the prestige of the former Soviet Union had to be regained at the international level. However, some of the pragmatic nationalists also accepted that liberal democracy was a valid goal for Russia, and that the introduction of the market would be beneficial to the economic development of the country."

Sample of Sources Used:

• Adamishin, Anatoly. (2008). About the Past That Still Continues. Russia in Global Affairs 2. <http://eng.globalaffairs.ru/region-rfp/numbers/23/1195.html>
• Boyle, Francis A. (2004). Destroying World Order : U.S. Imperialism in the Middle East Before and After September 11. Atlanta: Clarity Press.
• Bugajski, J. (Ed.). (2002). Toward an Understanding of Russia: New European Perspectives. New York: Council on Foreign Relations Press.
• Donaldson, R. H., & Nogee, J. L. (1998). The Foreign Policy of Russia: Changing Systems, Enduring Interests. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
• Fawn, R. (Ed.). (2003). Realignments in Russian Foreign Policy. London: Frank Cass.

More papers on U.S.-Russia Relations in the Putin Era:

• Research Paper # 26517 : "The United States and Russia"
• Research Paper # 57334 : "U.S.-Canada Relations and the Cold War"
• Term Paper # 68535 : "U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle East"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: