The Interaction Pattern: The Foreign Policy Issues between the Federal Republic and the Soviet Union

1963 ◽  
pp. 93-175
Author(s):  
Werner Feld
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Federal Republic ◽  
Interaction Pattern ◽  
Policy Issues ◽  
The Soviet Union

scholarly journals In the Eyes of the Collapsing Empire: Yugoslavia’s Disintegration and Slovenian Independence as seen through Russian Diplomatic Sources (1990–1992)

2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 111-149
Author(s):  
Andrej Stopar
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Federal Republic ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Critical Importance ◽  
Russian Foreign Policy ◽  
Policy Strategy ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
To Receive

Abstract It is of critical importance for every newly established state to receive international recognition. The Soviet Union strongly supported the unity and territorial integrity of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and considered the latter’s break-up within the context of its own disintegration. The article sets out Slovenia’s efforts to gain Russian recognition of Slovenian independence and sovereignty, as described in Soviet and Russian diplomatic sources, official statements and comments from academic circles. It aims to demonstrate that Moscow’s decision on this subject was the result of the momentary overlapping of various international developments along with a new Russian foreign policy strategy (which changed frequently and was, thus, exceptional in the Russian foreign policy tradition). Especially important in this context were the internal political tensions in the Russian Federation after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

scholarly journals The Yugoslav factor in the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and its impact upon Yugoslav-Soviet relations

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Elizaveta Aleksandrovna Bykova ◽  
Anna Olegovna Gridneva
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Federal Republic ◽  
Negative Influence ◽  
Mutual Cooperation ◽  
Hungarian Revolution ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Public Criticism

This article is dedicated to the process of normalization of Yugoslav-Soviet relations, which took place on the background of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. The goal consists in identification of causes for the absence of strong negative influence of the Yugoslav factor in the Hungarian events upon the relations between the Soviet Union and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Using the analysis of a wide array of sources and systematic consideration of the international situation that formed in 1956, the authors characterize the dynamics and vector of Yugoslav-Soviet relations during this period, determine the degree of impact of the Yugoslav factor in all its manifestations upon the development of Hungarian events, as well as trace the influence of the Hungarian Revolution upon Yugoslav-Soviet relations. The scientific novelty of this research consists in the analysis of direct and indirect participation of Yugoslavia in the conflict, which has been traditionally regarded as the conflict between the Soviet Union and Hungary alone. The conclusion is made that in 1956, the Soviet Union sought to unite the socialist countries on the background of tense foreign policy situation, trying to overcome the consequences of the conflict of 1948 and “attach” Yugoslavia to the bloc. Despite the fact that such intentions were jeopardized by the events of 1956 due to a range of controversial steps taken by Belgrade, Moscow did not immediately turn to public criticism of the Yugoslavs, as the mutual cooperation between the two countries was rather advantageous that the return to the situation of 1948 – 1953.

scholarly journals Russia’s Foreign Policy Evolution in the New Balkan Landscape

2020 ◽  
Vol 56 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 179-199
Author(s):  
Ekaterina Entina ◽  
Alexander Pivovarenko
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Regional Security ◽  
Southeast Europe ◽  
The Balkans ◽  
Current Trends ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
The Difference

The article reflects on the issue of the foreign policy strategy of modern Russia in the Balkans region. One of the most significant aspects of this problem is the difference in views between Russia and the West. Authors show how different interpretations of the events in former Yugoslavia in the 1990s and the beginning of the 2000s predetermined the sense of mutual suspicion and mistrust which spread to other regions such as the post-Soviet space. Exploring differences between the Russian and the Western (Euro-Atlantic) views on the current matters, authors draw attention to fundamental differences in terminology: while the Western narrative promotes more narrow geographical and political definitions (such as the Western Balkan Six), traditional Russian experts are more inclined to wider or integral definitions such as “the Balkans” and “Central and Southeast Europe”. Meanwhile none of these terms are applicable for analysis of the current trends such as the growing transit role of the Balkans region and its embedding in the European regional security architecture. Therefore, a new definition is needed to overcome the differences in vision and better understand significant recent developments in the region. Conceptualizing major foreign policy events in Central and Southeast Europe during the last three decades (the 1990s, 2000s and 2010s), authors demonstrate the significance of differences in tools and methods between the Soviet Union and the modern Russia. Permanent need for adaptation to changing political and security context led to inconsistence in Russian Balkan policy in the 1990s. Nevertheless, Russia was able to preserve an integral vision of the region and even to elaborate new transregional constructive projects, which in right political circumstances may promote stability and become beneficial for both Russia and the Euro-Atlantic community.

Soviet Foreign Policy Factionalism Under Stalin?: A Case Study of the Inevitability of War Controversy

1976 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-107
Author(s):  
Paul Marantz
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Harsh Discipline ◽  
Capitalist System ◽  
Strict Adherence ◽  
Policy Debates ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Soviet Foreign Policy ◽  
Important Evidence

AbstractThere has been a great deal of controversy among Western scholars concerning the direction of Soviet foreign policy in the final years and months of Stalin's rule.1 One of the crucial questions at issue is whether or not there were significant divisions of opinion within the Politburo over foreign policy matters. This article attempts to explore this particular question through an examination of a doctrinal controversy that surfaced during Stalin's last years. In one of his most famous works, Imperialism: The Highest State of Capitalism, Lenin argued that war was an inevitable concomitant of the capitalist system. He contended that the unending struggle for markets meant that periodic wars among the capitalist powers were unavoidable and inevitable.2 Stalin adhered to this view throughout his long reign, and it was not until three years after Stalin's death, in Khruschchev's speech to the Twentieth Party Congress, that it was finally revised. Yet despite Stalin's strict adherence to the Leninist analysis of imperialism, and despite the harsh discipline that characterized his rule, there is evidence that the official interpretation was being publicly questioned even while Stalin was still alive. Given the nature of esoteric communication in the Soviet Union,and the close connection between doctrinal and policy debates, an examination of the controversy concerning the inevitability of war can provide important evidence having a direct bearing upon our understanding of this period.3

scholarly journals Do History Lessons Ever Pay off? A Diplomat’s Memoir

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rodric Braithwaite
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Russian Language ◽  
University Of Cambridge ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Underlying Causes ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Russian Language ◽  
Insight Into ◽  
Moscow River

Sir Rodric Braithwaite was educated at Christ’s College, University of Cambridge, from where he went to serve in HM Diplomatic Service, having worked in Jakarta, Moscow, Washington, Warsaw, Rome, and Brussels, where he was a member of the British delegation to the European Community. From 1988 to 1992, Sir Rodric served as HM Ambassador in the Soviet Union during the decisive years of the Perestroika and the first British ambassador in Russia. Subsequently, he was appointed foreign policy adviser to the Prime Minister in the second John Major ministry and chaired the UK Joint Intelligence Committee between 1992 and 1993. He was appointed Knight Grand Cross of the Order of St Michael and St George (GCMG) in 1994. As a career diplomat, Sir Rodric gained decades of insight into the troubled relations between Russia and West, having taken part in numerous negotiations on arms control. His affinity with the decision-making circles in both Russia and Britain alongside with the mastery of the Russian language allow him to skillfully dissect the underlying causes of ups-and-downs in Moscow’s relationship with the West, employing the works of both English- and Russian-speaking analysts. Among his recent books are Across the Moscow River (2002), Moscow 1941: A City and Its People at War (2006), Afgantsy: The Russians in Afghanistan, 1979–1989 (2012), Armageddon and Paranoia: The Nuclear Confrontation (2017). In this essay, Sir Rodric reminisces of the years spent as a diplomat and provides his view on the usefulness and applicability of historical lessons while devising a foreign policy course.

scholarly journals Manifestation of the Internal Systemic Conflict in Mongolia

2021 ◽  
Vol 36 ◽  
pp. 17-25
Author(s):  
K. Demberel ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Cold War ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Eastern Europe ◽  
Military Intervention ◽  
Diplomatic Relations ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Investment Boom ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
Second Period

The article deals with the issue of Mongolia's foreign policy during the Cold War. This period is divided into two parts. The first period, 1945-1960s, is a period of conflict between two systems: socialism and capitalism. In this first period of the Cold War Mongolia managed to establish diplomatic relations with socialist countries of Eastern Europe, as the “system allowed”. The second period, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1980s, is the period of the conflict of the socialist system, the period of the Soviet-Chinese confrontation. During this period Mongolia's foreign policy changed dramatically and focused on the Soviet Union. This was due to the Soviet investment «boom» that began in 1960s and the entry of Soviet troops on the territory of Mongolia in 1967. The Soviet military intervention into Mongolia was one of the main reasons for cooling the Soviet-Chinese relations. And military withdrawal contributed to the improvement of Soviet-Chinese relations until the mid-1980s and one of the conditions for improving relations with their neighbors. The internal systemic conflict had a serious impact on Mongolia's foreign policy over those years.

INDIA’S ROLE IN KAZAKHSTAN’S MULTI-VECTOR FOREIGN POLICY

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 043-049
Author(s):  
Punit GAUR ◽  
Anurag TRIPATHI ◽  
Shovan Sinha RAY
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Central Asia ◽  
Soft Power ◽  
Mutual Cooperation ◽  
Industrial Enterprises ◽  
Complex Interdependence ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
State Economy ◽  
Near Future

After the disintegration of the Soviet Union, Kazakhstan’s economy was weak since most of the industrial enterprises were located in Russia. To attain economic growth, Kazakhstan crafted a unique foreign policy known as the multi-vector foreign policy, which facilitated an easy inflow of direct foreign investments into the state economy. After economic liberalization in 1991, India took a serious interest in Central Asia, and since then the two nations have come a long way marked by complex interdependence in the international arena. They have demonstrated a successful and sustained upward trend in their bilateral relationship through soft power, trade and long-standing historical connections. Thus, the prospects of mutual cooperation between Central Asia, particularly Kazakhstan, and India are quite promising in the near future.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document