AN ATTEMPT TO EXPLORE THE POTENTIAL FOR CHANGE IN RUSSIA’S DOMESTIC SYSTEM AND ITS FOREIGN POLICY: LESSONS ON THE COLD WAR END

Authors

  • Petar MURGINSKI Military Academy G. S. Rakovski
  • Preslav TONKOV The London School of Economics and Political Science

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.53477/2284-9378-22-79

Keywords:

Cold War;, ; foreign policy;, geopolitics, ; Russia, USSR, USA, NATO

Abstract

The Cold War is not an event, it seems, but a process that continues nowadays, too. In this scholarly article, we defend the thesis that the asymmetric end of the Cold War left a lasting memory on Russia‘s foreign policy. In developing this thesis,
we proceed as follows: firstly, we will outline the realist counterargument to our thesis which suggests that no lessons can be learned from the ending of the Cold War because the bipolar struggle itself and the period after were continuations of the
constant struggle for power between states in which historical narratives and ideas have no part to play. Secondly, building on the existing constructivist perspective, we will show that understanding the different ideational frameworks that developed
in Washington and Moscow are paramount to understanding the deterioration of Russia’s relations with the West in the past decade. Thirdly, we will show how the narratives that developed within Russia about the ending of the Cold War and Russia’s
place in the world are critical to understanding the potential for change in the domestic system.

Author Biography

Petar MURGINSKI, Military Academy G. S. Rakovski

Bachelor degree in International Economic Relations, awarded by University of Economics Varna, Class of 2016

Master degree in European Studies, awarded by The London School of Economics and Political Science, Class of 2017

Doctoral student in Military-Political Aspects of Security, G. S. Rakovski Military Academy

Relevant certifications: Executive Education in Negotiation and Leadership, awarded by Harvard Law School, Class of 2021

Current position and affiliation: PhD student, Department of National and International Security, G. S. Rakovski Military Academy

Research interests: EU’s Foreign Policy and Defence, Political Philosophy, Crisis Economics

 

References

Donaldson, Robert, Vidya Nadkarni, and Joseph Nogee. 2014. Тhe Foreign Policy of Russia: Changing

Systems, Enduring Interests. 5th edition. London: Routledge.

Fish, Steven. 2018. ”What Has Russia Become?” Comparative Politics, 50 (3): 327-346. Accessed

August 19, 2022. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26532689.

Fukuyama, Francis. 1992. The End of History and the Last Man. New York: Penguin Random House.

Gorbachev, Mikhail. 1989. Address given by Mikhail Gorbachev to the Council of Europe. Accessed

August 19, 2022. https://www.cvce.eu/content/publication/2002/9/20/4c021687-98f9-4727-9e8b836e0bc1f6fb/publishable_en.pdf.

Bulletin of ”Carol I” National Defence University

September 2022 37

Lankina, Tomila, and Kohei Watanabe. 2017. ”Russian Spring or Spring Betrayal? The Media as a

Mirror of Putin’s Evolving Strategy in Ukraine.” Europe-Asia Studies, 69 (10): 1526-1556. Accessed

August 19, 2022. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09668136.2017.1397603.

McFaul, Michael. 2014. ”Faulty Powers: Who Started the Ukraine Crisis?” Foreign Affairs, 167-

Accessed August 19, 2022. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/eastern-europecaucasus/2014-10-17/faulty-powers.

Mearsheimer, John. 2012. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W.W. Norton.

Monaghan, Andrew. 2011. ”The Russian Vertikal: the Tandem, Power and the Elections.” Russia and

Eurasia Programme Paper REP 2011/01. Accessed August 19, 2022. https://www.chathamhouse.

org/sites/default/files/19412_0511ppmonaghan.pdf .

Morozov, Viatcheslav. 2015. Russia’s Postcolonial Identity: A Subaltern Empire in a Eurocentric World.

London: Palgrave MacMillan.

Neumann, Iver. 2016. Russia and the Idea of Europe. London: Routledge.

—. 1998. Uses of the Other: “The East” in European Identity Formation. Mineapolis: University of

Minnesota Press.

Pouliot, Vincent. 2010. International Security in Practice: The Politics of NATO-Russia Diplomacy.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Reuters. 2009. Clinton, Lavrov Push Wrong Reset Button on Ties. Geneva. Accessed August 19, 2022.

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN06402140.

Sakwa, Richard. 2016. Frontline Ukraine: Crisis in the Borderlands. London: I. B. Tauris.

Stent, Angela. 2015. The Limits of Partnership. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Stoner, Kathryn. 2021. Russia Resurrected: Its Power and Purpose in a New Global Order. New York:

Oxford University Press.

Tang, Shiping. 2009. ”The Security Dilemma: A Conceptual Analysis.” Security Studies, 18 (3): 587-623.

Accessed August 19, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1080/09636410903133050.

Thies, Wallace. 2012. Why NATO Endures? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tsygankov, Andrey. 2019. Russia’s Foreign Policy: Change and Continuity in National Identity. 5th

edition. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Wallender, Celeste. 2000. ”Institutional Assets and Adaptability: NATO After the Cold War.” International

Organizations: The MIT Press, 54 (4): 705-735. Accessed August 19, 2022. https://www.jstor.org/

stable/2601379.

Walt, Stephen. 2018. The Hell of Good Intentions: America’s Foreign Policy Elite and the Decline of

U.S. Primacy. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Waltz, Kenneth. 1979. Theory of International Politics. Waveland Press.

Wendt, Alexander. 1995. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

White, Stephen, and Valentina Feklyunina. 2014. Identities and Foreign Policies in Russia, Ukraine and

Belarus. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Wohlforth, William. 1994. ”Realism and the End of The Cold War.” International Security , 19 (3): 91-129.

Accessed August 19, 2022. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2539080

Downloads

Published

2022-10-20

Issue

Section

Articol