Fyodor Lukyanov is editor in chief of the journal Russia in Global Affairs, Chairman of Presidium of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy.
In the absence of a diplomatic settlement between the West and Russia over Ukraine, Moscow may seek to capitalize on recent gains in the Middle East at US expense.
The nation’s largest neighbouring partners need to pool their efforts
Vladimir Putin's policies in Ukraine are not part of an attempt to expand Russia's empire westwards. He is simply trying to reduce the chaos caused by the massive incompetence of Ukraine's ruling elite
The current violence in Kiev is more reminiscent of Moscow in October 1993 than the Orange Revolution.
The diplomatic epic aimed at stopping the Syrian civil war has reached a critical point.
The energetic and driven McFaul did much to extricate Russian-US relations from the deadlock they were stuck in by the end of Bush’s second term.
The stakes are high for both the U.S. and Russia as Geneva II gets underway.
Moscow believes that Iran's role in the Middle East will only become more prominent in the future, prompting it to further boost relations at the expense of US regional influence.
Much has been written about the success of Russian diplomacy in 2013. And whether you greet it with glee or alarm, there is a sense that Russia is on the verge of something new.
Significant terrorist acts in Russia and the United States usually have the same effect. The same thing happened as recently as last spring, after the terrorist attack in Boston, as a trail was found leading back to the Caucasus.
The dawn of a unipolar world means that countries will have to settle arguments through talks again.
Russia will step into 2014 with stunning foreign policy achievements. It is impossible to deny the increase in its international influence over the past year.
The year 2013 is considered to be a year of Russia’s foreign policy successes. A string of events – from the breakthrough in settling the chemical weapons issue in Syria and the hard line on the Snowden case to contribution to the settlement of the Iranian problem to the convincing explanation to Kiev as to why it should refrain from signing an association agreement with the EU – made the world speak of Moscow’s potent capability to achieve its goals.
In his annual State of the Union this week, President Vladimir Putin for perhaps the first time clearly articulated the philosophy that guides Russia’s leadership – conservatism.
One can only marvel at how quickly things change. Just a short while ago, Russia seemed to be retreating on all diplomatic fronts.
Russia doesn’t deny Iran’s right to develop nuclear energy, on the contrary, Russia hugely contributed to that despite resistance and harsh criticism from the West.
Russian foreign policy in the region has benefited from a steady, non-ideological focus, as well as the missteps and neglect of other powers.
Some crucial changes can pass almost unnoticed, as happened earlier this month, when it was decided to put off the EU-Russia summit from December to the end of January, or possibly even later.
It seems that Iran and the United States, the main participants in the process, really want to change the atmosphere of their relationship, which has been hopelessly confrontational since the late 1970s.
All ratings are constructs which reflect not so much the real state of affairs as their compilers’ perception of it.
However, Ukraine only maintained its special relationship with Moscow because Russia allowed it. It was very difficult for Moscow to admit that Ukraine, which no one had ever considered separately from Russia, had become a foreign state.
The answer to this question with regard to the global economy and politics even a couple of years ago would be considered self-evident – of course, together. In the global world, where countries depend on each other in one way or another, success is possible only through ever deeper cooperation.
It has been a long time since Ukraine received as much attention as it has in recent weeks.
The greatest strength of the European model in its heyday – the second half of the 20th century – was the ability to synthesize constructive energy and to avoid excesses.
Politicians, who are obliged to listen to the electorate, are changing their stance so as not to lose the public’s trust on other, more important, internal issues.
If you read Vladimir Putin’s Valdai speech carefully, it becomes clear that he’s offering a new philosophy of development.
Getting Syria to sign the Chemical Weapons Convention and give up its chemical weapons gives new hope for a surge in US-Russian diplomacy to end the war in Syria.
The Americans are confused. They do not understand what to do, but they see the use of force as the solution to every problem, even when the consequences are unknown. Russia does not know how to work with such a partner.
When four years ago Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, he dedicated his laureate speech to the subject of just and unjust wars.
Russian-Ukrainian relations are again at the center of attention. Attempts to improve cooperation have quickly ground to a halt.
“It is Putin the conservative and not Putin the realist who decided to violate Ukraine’s sovereignty.”
Oxford historian, Mark Almond, recalls the lessons from history once taught by Foreign Secretary, William Hague, in his study of Pitt the Younger’s mishandling of what he called the “Ochakov fiasco” in 1791.