scholarly journals The Energy Toolkit of Statecraft

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 56-73
Author(s):  
S. Golunov
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Energy Security ◽  
Oil Prices ◽  
Energy Markets ◽  
Economic Shocks ◽  
Political Interests ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Target Energy ◽  
Dramatic Growth ◽  
The U.S

While employing their energy potentials for advancing their foreign policy interests, Russia and the USA apply various political tools and practices, that can be classified as “positive”, “negative”, regulating energy markets, and reinforcing one’s own potential. The author argues that in both cases the application of energy-related statecraft is largely related either to energy security or to advancing ideologically inspired political interests. These two kinds of incentives can both work together or conflict each other. To pursue their relevant interests, both Russia and the USA have distinctive potentials, resources, and instruments that to a large extent were developed under influence of geopolitical and economic shocks: dramatic growth of global oil prices in 1970s for the USA and centrifugal post-Soviet geopolitical processes in 1990s for Russia. As a negative tool, the USA most often uses various kinds of sanctions to target energy sectors of their opponents, while the strongest Russian weapon is energy supply restrictions. To safeguard one’s own energy security and solidify their political influences both states manage bilateral complementary “producer–consumer” relations, while to stabilize global oil price, both states participate in international energy alliances. For instrumental purposes, both states also take advantage of purposeful or spontaneous transformations of their energy sectors (e.g. consolidation of the Russian energy sector and the U.S. ‘shale revolution’) for foreign policy purposes. In most cases, the effectiveness of applying statecraft tools for advancing energy-related interests proved to be limited. Those sanctions and other ways of pressure that targeted opponents’ energy sectors (especially if applied unilaterally) themselves rarely led to desirable alterations in those opponents’ policies. The results of energy alliances building also have proved to be limited both for Russia and for the USA as those alliances do not secure full-fledged control over global oil prices and are not solid or representative enough.

New Dimension of Global Energy Security

2015 ◽  
Vol 59 (11) ◽  
pp. 5-16
Author(s):  
E. Telegina
Keyword(s):  
Saudi Arabia ◽  
Energy Security ◽  
Oil Prices ◽  
Oil Production ◽  
Energy Markets ◽  
Production Costs ◽  
Global Energy ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Usa ◽  
The Impact

The article analyzes the current state of energy markets. The basic fundamental factor of the demand for energy resources – the world economy growth – is rather low. At the same time, the USA and China demonstrate steady economic growth, thus rising demand for hydrocarbons. But recent decline of prices for oil and other commodities like metals or grain shows that among various factors, both fundamental and speculative, financial markets are also speeding up the volatility on the markets, thus deepening the gap between “paper” and “fair” oil price. Also, it is necessary to analyze the impact on the situation on the global oil market of such multidirectional factors as influence of “shale revolution” in the USA or Saudi Arabia refusal to reduce oil production. Shale oil helped USA to overcome oil import dependency and to become an exporter in the future. However, production costs in the country are rather high. On the contrary, Saudi Arabia has low production costs and is now trying to keep the international prices at a level that makes the US shale projects infeasible. The Saudi budget 2015 assumed a price of $90/barrel and it can endure $50 as well. However, other oil exporting countries face huge losses. Nevertheless, in the future oil prices will rise and evidently the level of fair price can be determined at $60-70/barrel. The author examines also the break-even prices for oil production and levels of oil prices necessary for formation of budgets of oil exporting countries. The changes on oil and gas markets lead to formation of more complicated global energy space and to shifts in the concept of energy security from ensuring the stability of energy supplies to energy self-sufficiency. The transformation of energy markets and geopolitical risks cause the changes in the transportation logistics and enhance risks of implementation of new trans-border pipelines. Prospects of sustainable and multidirectional development of global and regional energy markets are also considered.

New Aspects of Discourse about the Berlin’s Realpolitik

2015 ◽  
Vol 59 (12) ◽  
pp. 30-40
Author(s):  
V. Vasil'ev
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
German Society ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Main Concern ◽  
European Security ◽  
The Usa ◽  
The Government ◽  
The U.S ◽  
The Eu

The article investigates approaches taken by major political parties and civil society in the FRG toward the Transatlantic partnership. It reveals the tendencies of the prospective promotion of Berlin’s cooperation with Washington; the article also gives a forecast of further interaction between the EU and the USA, indicates the direction of discourse regarding the future Russia–Germany relations model in the context of the Ukrainian crisis and in reference to the increased transatlantic solidarity. Disputes in German socio-political circles on the issue of the FRG’s policy toward the U.S. are emerging all the time, but they have to be considered within a concrete historical and political context. Being of primary significance for all German chancellors, the Trans-Atlantic factor has been shaping itself in a controversial way as to the nation’s public opinion. This has been confirmed by many opinion polls, including the survey on the signing of the EU–U.S. Agreement on the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. Chancellor A. Merkel is playing an important role: she is either ascribed full compliancy with Washington, or is being tentatively shown as a consistent government figure in advancing and upholding of Germany's and the EU's interests. A. Merkel has implemented her peace-seeking drive in undoing the Ukrainian tangle by setting up the “Normandy format” involving the leaders of Germany, France, Russia and Ukraine while having cleared it through with the U.S. President B. Obama well in advance. Despite the increasing criticism of Washington’s policy among some part of Germans, for the majority of German voters, the USA remains a country of implementable hopes, the only power in the world possessing a high education level and the most advanced technologies. Americans, for their part, are confident of the important role that Berlin plays in world politics, particularly in what concerns the maintenance of unity within the EU. Berlin aims at further constructive interaction with the USA in the frame of NATO as well as within other Trans-Atlantic formats. Notwithstanding the steady tendency toward increasing of the Washington policy’s critical perception degree in German society, officially Berlin continues as Washington’s true ally, partner and friend. There is every reason to believe that after the 2017 Bundestag elections, the new (the former) Chancellor will have to face a modernized Trans-Atlantic partnership philosophy, with a paradigm also devised in the spirit of the bloc discipline and commitments to allies. The main concern for Berlin is not to lose its sovereign right of decision-making, including the one that deals with problems of European security and relations with Moscow. Regrettably, Germany is not putting forward any innovative ideas on aligning a new architecture of European security with Russia’s participation. Meanwhile, German scholars and experts are trying to work out a tentative algorithm of a gradual return to the West’s full-fledged dialogue with Russia, which, unfortunately, is qualified as an opponent by many politicians. Predictably, the Crimea issue will remain a long-lasting political irritant in relations between Russia and Germany. Although not every aspect of Berlin’s activation in its foreign policy finds support of the German public, and the outburst of anti-American feeling is obvious, experts believe that the government of the FRG is “merely taking stock of these phenomena and ignores them”. Evident is the gap between the government's line and the feeling of the German parties’ basis – the public. It is noteworthy that the FRG has not yet adopted the Law on Holding General Federal Referendums on key issues of the domestic and foreign policy. There is every indication to assume that the real causes of abandoning the nationwide referendums are the reluctance of the German ruling bureaucracy and even its apprehensions of the negative voting returns on sensitive problems, – such as basic documents and decisions of the EU, the export of German arms, relations with the U.S., etc. The harmony between Berlin’s "Realpolitik" and German public opinion is not yet discernible within the system of Trans-Atlantic axes.

scholarly journals Problems of Prioritization National Security interest of Energy import-dependent States (Case studies: Georgia and Lithuania)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nana Pirtskhelani
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
National Security ◽  
Energy Security ◽  
Research Question ◽  
State Sovereignty ◽  
Good Opportunity ◽  
Main Research ◽  
Political Interests ◽  
Security Challenges ◽  
National Energy Security

This paper focuses on studying the prioritization process of national interests of energy import-dependent states. In particular, considering the energy strategy formation processes of Georgia and Lithuania, it explores the interrelation among the objectives of supply security and national security challenges. The reason behind the choice of the given countries was that energy security policies of both countries were formed based on identical characteristics after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Analysis of the mentioned cases offers a good opportunity to explain how foreign policy threats affect national energy security decisions. The study also examines the major factors affecting prioritization of national security interests, providing a possibility to answer the main research question of the paper - what prompts states to pursue less rational policies in terms of energy security, justified by maintaining state sovereignty? Using the securitization concept, the paper also explains what leads to taking steps aimed at solving national security challenges, which may, in turn, lead to the emergence of new types of security challenges. Analysis of the mentioned cases offers a good opportunity to explain how foreign policy threats affect national energy security decisions, whether such threats cause new energy challenges to be subject to political interests and whether it is appropriate for states to pursue such energy policy with the motive of maintaining state sovereignty. The paper indicates that energy policies purely formed based on political interests, may not face the main energy security challenges of the country.

scholarly journals To the Issue of Creation and Functioning of the U.S. Department of State (18th-19th Centuries)

2017 ◽  
pp. 273-289
Author(s):  
Tetiana Klynina ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
Thomas Jefferson ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
War And Peace ◽  
James Madison ◽  
Department Of State ◽  
The Usa ◽  
William Jennings Bryan ◽  
The U.S

The article focuses on the question of the creation of the U.S. Department of State and its functions. We surveyed historiography (works by Mihalkanin E., Plischke E., West R.,Glad B. and so on). For over 200 years, the Department of State has conducted American diplomacy through war and peace, amidst the competing currents of isolationism and internationalism that have shaped American foreign policy and its commitment to liberty and democracy. The Department of State was established as the Department of Foreign Affairs by the act of July 27, 1789 and became the first Federal agency to be created under the new Constitution. In September 1789, additional legislation changed the name of the agency to the Department of State and assigned to it a variety of duties. There are 5 main periods of existence of the U.S. Department of State: the emerging State Department (1789-1860), the Department comes of age (1861-1895), managing the foreign affairs of a great power (1900-1940), the Department of state and the U.S. as a Superpower (1945-1960), the Department of State’s role in the U.S. Foreign Affairs Community (1961-2000). Special attention is paid to the positions of the Secretary of State who is in charge of defining and implementing U.S. foreign policy. Thomas Jefferson, Henry Kissinger, John Quincy Adams, William Jennings Bryan, Henry Clay, James Madison, George C. Marshall, George Schultz, and Daniel Webster are just a few of the Secretaries who played the greatest role in the providing of the USA’ foreign affairs. Then author gives the illustration of the secretary relations with the President, Cabinet and Congress.

scholarly journals The Republic of Poland as Part of American Security Factor in Central-Eastern

2018 ◽  
pp. 688-706
Author(s):  
Liudmyla Chekalenko
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Strategic Partnership ◽  
Scientific Cooperation ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Leading Position ◽  
Bilateral Cooperation ◽  
The U.S

The article states that the world is marked by deep changes and unexpected tendencies in security, political, economic and social fields. European West, the leading position of which is questioned with increasing frequency, has to make significant adjustments to its own policies, to strengthen its role by applying new instruments of influence in order to adequately respond to rising challenges. All participants of the European integration association, including Poland, face a range of common problems, which they cannot solve by their own. This situation determined strategic objectives of Poland’s foreign policy one of which is the establishment of long-term and allied relations with the United States of America. With the collapse of the Warsaw military bloc, Poland has implemented two major vectors: the path to the NATO and EU membership. The author points out that the position of the USA and cooperation with Washington is currently important for Poland. Among the main areas of partnership, there are economic, military, scientific cooperation, visa issues, cooperation in the field of energy and climate, etc. The priority objective is to strengthen the position of Poland on the international scene, provide country security through collaborative relations with NATO, as well as systematically expand the scope of bilateral cooperation. The Poland’s path to NATO has not been easy. Following the actual denial of membership from the US, Poland was concerned. Nevertheless in 1996 the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate passed the NATO Enlargement Facilitation Act, particularly through Poland’s involvement. Poland’s actions in the international arena reflect the values that are the basis of the Polish state. They are democracy, the rule of law, respect for human rights and solidarity. That is why Poland follows certain priorities to achieve these goals. Foreign policy vectors are determined by the President and Parliament, among them the priority is given to strengthening Poland’s position in the international arena, to guarantee the security of the country through cooperation with NATO, etc. Consequently, Warsaw is frank that the future of Poland will depend on how the country will use its strategic partnership with the United States. Keywords: Republic of Poland, NATO, United States of America, bilateral cooperation.

scholarly journals Do the Media Affect the Decisions of Policy Makers in Foreign Policy?

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (6) ◽  
pp. 11
Author(s):  
Mazen Ajjan ◽  
Syed Mehartaj Begum
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
News Coverage ◽  
New York Times ◽  
Bush Administration ◽  
Policy Decision ◽  
Public Media ◽  
The Usa ◽  
The Media ◽  
The U.S

On July 16th 2021, the U.S. newly elected President Joe Biden hosted Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa Al-Kadhimi at the White House. The main topic was the future of the U.S. troops in Iraq. The controversial American invasion, after more than eighteen years, is again in focus. The American media in particular is allocating long hours of its live coverage in discussing this sensitive topic. This paper investigates the complex relationship between media and policymakers in the USA. The paper uses the invasion of Iraq in 2003 as a case study to address the question of the media’s influence on policy decision-making. By choosing two main media outlets in the "stalwart" on democracy: The New York Times and Fox News. The paper goes through a detailed account of how the Bush administration was able to impose their interpretation of the situation and how the media fostered misperceptions among the American public in one of the most world’s controversial crises. The conclusion from this analysis was that the media don’t affect policymaking. On the contrary, the American administration shaped the news coverage almost entirely. The Bush administration in 2003 was able to employ media to form its war agenda and spreading it to the public. Media, even in a democratic system, was unable to give counter argument or even a critical attitude towards Bush administration foreign policy.    Received: 5 August 2021 / Accepted: 4 October 2021 / Published: 5 November 2021

scholarly journals TRUMP AND THE FOREIGN POLICY CRISIS IN THE UNITED STATES

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tariq Aziz ,Fahad Muhammad ,Waheed Shah
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Gradual Loss ◽  
Extreme Response ◽  
The Usa ◽  
The Sacrifice ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Power And Authority

Under Donald Trump's administration, American foreign policy's controversial and anti-traditional path has already disrupted decades of U.S strategy, conveying an extreme response from both allies and enemies. This steady decline not only confuses the close allies of the USA in Europe and Asia but also brings new insight to the growing and revival powers that the age of historic global dominance in the United States is over. The decline in US superpower status was, however, accidentally not due to "national below-reach," but through a gradual loss of power and authority including the sacrifice of power. Under Trump's administration, U.S. foreign policy is shifting the U.S. relationship with former friends and harming their potential to achieve the expected results.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document