To expand on the success it achieved in the Middle East in the first months of this year, Russia should offer an effective plan for change of power in Syria.
In early 2003, during Vladimir Putin’s first term as president, Russia found itself in a political alliance with the West for the first time since World War I.
The presidents of Russia and Ukraine have met for the first time since Vladimir Putin’s re-election.
Vladimir Putin, who was inaugurated as president of Russia on May 7, has instructed the Foreign Ministry to ensure compliance with the New START Treaty.
Russia and China make up the backbone of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Equating the ongoing search for a positive balance of Russian and Chinese interests with an incessant tug of war for asserting one’s hegemony would be a biased conclusion that would be contrary to the way the SCO is organized and functions.
What we observe in Turkey is the emergence of a middle power with an ambitious leader that may sometimes overjudge his own powers, but aiming to enhance the power position of his country during a period of a major world economic crisis and rapidly changing circumstances.
Russia should step over its prejudices and take a look at today’s Iran as its serious and long-term partner in the region – not at the declarative level, but at the level of action. Such attempts have been made from time to time, but now and then they are interrupted – out of the wrong fear to anger the Americans.
The final text of Russia’s Strategy-2020, published last week, contains a small but surprising sentence that has not been given the attention it deserves.
The latest intrigue in Russian-U.S. relations was U.S. President Barack Obama’s delayed official greetings to president-elect Vladimir Putin on his win.
Russia, the country which Putin governs, is essentially perceived in the world as a decaying power.
Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili finally got what he couldn’t get for several years: an official visit to the White House.
Russia and USA have exhausted the positive agenda and the election-related political fervor in both countries will only emphasize areas of dissonance.
Given the crisis in the U.S. and the European Union, the continued health of Asia and emerging markets, and Russia’s effort to look East, it is not unimaginable that twenty years hence the world will see the rise of Russia and the beginning of an Asia-Pacific century, potentially impacting Russia, ASEAN and their mutual relations.
We should not wait till the next crisis makes all the states it will affect in North America, the European Union and the rest of Europe realize that everybody is interested in close and friendly cooperation from Vancouver to Vladivostok. The way along this track has long been determined and responsible politicians should embark upon it.
What the UN cannot do is to manufacture and fabricate international consensus where none exists. It cannot be the center for harmonizing national interests – and mediating or reconciling them into the international interest – when the divisions are too deep to be papered over by diplomacy, when the disputes are too intractable to be resolved around the negotiating table.
Russia has at least one tactical advantage over the other leading players. We are at the beginning of a new political cycle, and therefore have the advantage of medium-term planning – at least for six years ahead. So why shouldn’t Russia try to spearhead the looming intellectual breakthrough?
The context of Russia-EU relations is changing. Before Russia was seen as the unpredictable party but now the Europeans are catching up in this respect.
The interests of Russia and the European countries are so closely intertwined that they will not part ways even if their leaders fail to hit it off on the personal level.
The summit of the Eastern Partnership that took place last week in Warsaw, Poland, turned into a bombastic event, complete with the ceremonial exchange of solemn words.
For many centuries, rivalry among Turkey, Iran and Russia determined the geopolitics of the South Caucasus. In the 19th and 20th centuries other actors asserted their presence, too.
A mounting dispute has arisen in the past two years between Russia and Japan over a peace treaty that the two countries never signed after World War II.
The 9/11 tragedy was an opportunity for Russia and the United States to significantly improve relations. But was there ever such an opportunity?
Any foreign trip by North Korean leader Kim Jong-il arouses a great deal of interest, as he practically never leaves his country.
The priority of U.S.-Russian relations once again, as in the 1970s, is the development of stabilizing rules of conduct in case of an unauthorized military clash or conflict with third countries. The situation, however, may change. Will Moscow and Washington be able to keep the logic of mutual assured destruction, which for half a century has ensured peaceful bilateral relations?
The world’s view of Ukraine has changed dramatically since Viktor Yanukovych was elected president.
Our relations are probably at their lowest point since the fall of the Soviet Union.
It will be difficult to see stronger ties between Japan and Russia in the short term; however, it is important to strengthen these ties in the long term. Japan needs Russia as an energy supplier and for investment, while Russia needs Japanese assistance in its economic reform for sustainable development. The China factor will push Tokyo and Moscow towards strategic dialogue.
The conservative ideologists have come to the ultimate conclusion that it does not make sense to rely on the European Union as a protector of Britain’s national interests in the international scene and that its own independent capabilities should be built up. In the new European context London’s approach might become a model to follow for other major EU states.
Rethinking the nuclear arms policy implies making it independent – that is, relieving it of the task of maintaining parity with the United States and subordinating it to the interests of the military security and international political influence of Russia. Russia’s military security can be effectively and reliably ensured by a much smaller arsenal of strategic nuclear forces than it has now, even considering the possible need to overcome the U.S. missile defense system in the future.
The outgoing year witnessed a number of shocks in post-Soviet countries.
At a roundtable event in Moscow, top experts debated the “hypocritical” and “insincere” foreign policies of both Russia and the West in the post-Cold War era.
Vladimir Putin has mentioned several times that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a geopolitical mistake. Although these words were often interpreted as his desire to constitute that country, there is little reason to believe this.
The April 16 referendum will focus on power distribution rather than institution building. In other words, the organizers saw it as an opportunity to expand the President’s powers and allow him to rule longer. In their turn, Turks perceived it as an institutional choice to contribute to the development of the state.
If the larger picture defies prediction, the immediate future is scarcely more transparent. In the U.S. case, the known unknowns are numerous. They begin with the question of how much deck furniture Trump is willing to overturn in order to pursue an “America First” strategy.
In the wake of the For Fair Elections protest movement in Russia in 2011-2012, the Kremlin initiated a new strategy of state-society relations that was aimed at diminishing the propensity for protest in the next election cycle.
Belarus’ traditional structural dependence on Russia is increasing, and Minsk’s freedom of maneuver continues to shrink.