Russia in Global Affairs

The monograph by Anatoly Torkunov and Kim Hak-chun is undoubtedly unique; its release has become not only an outstanding event in the history of Korean studies in Russia and Russian studies in Korea, but also a milestone in the history of scientific and cultural cooperation between the two countries.

In 2020, about a year before the “escape from Kabul” drama began to unfold, the academic collection of essays entitled On Strategy: A Primer hit the shelves in the United States. Chief editor of this book Nathan Finney well represents the modern cohort of U.S. staff officers boasting a remarkable combination of professional military training and fundamental university education.

In the Western mind, Russia remains among the most important significant Others. These days, given the rapidly developing identity crisis of the modern West, even more so than before.

Europe’s reliance on the U.S. is no longer sustainable. Glenn Diesen introduces an alternative. If the Russian-Chinese partnership gains sufficient geoeconomic power, it can integrate Europe with Asia into a Eurasian supercontinent. In this scenario the EU can diversify its partners and avoid excessive dependence on one player or region.

In the broadest terms, the situation in the international relations theory can be described as a clash between two main schools—realist and liberal. The realists’ leading voices are John Mearsheimer and Kenneth Waltz, while the liberals’ mastermind is John Ikenberry. Richard Hanania’s new book challenges both camps by offering a new vision of how U.S. foreign policy is shaped. 

Interest in political geography in Russia surged in the 1990s when it caught up with economic and social geography as a science in its own right. However, over the past quarter of a century it has lost much of that interest.

This book, edited by Evgeny Pashentsev, brings together a series of chapters written by Rus-sian and non-Russian scholars to analyze the current state of relations between Russia and the European Union. The chapters were written, and the book published, at a time of excep-tional stress in the relationship and the leitmotif of the book is the need and opportunity to explore ways in which this tragic situation might be changed.

History, the end of which Fukuyama predicted some time ago with a big commercial success, has simply been negated by suggesting that interaction mechanisms concerning “identity” do not change over centuries.

Stephen F. Cohen ‘s book War with Russia? is controversial and debatable. Any of the author’s arguments should create applause by his supporters and fierce opposition from his critics as they could be the starting point for a much-needed debate.