Russian Factor in Barack Obama’s Military-Political Strategy

Author(s):  
N. Bubnova

Upon becoming president of the United States, Barack Obama formulated the policy of reset in the U.S.-Russia relations – as part of his grand project of improving international relations on a more equitable basis, with a bigger role for diplomacy and international alliances and less reliance on unilateral actions and the use of force. As part of resetting their relationship in the military-political field, the United States and Russia were able, in the first and part of the second tenure of Obama’s presidency, to claim some major achievements in the military-political field, such as signing the New START Treaty, working on further nuclear disarmament measures, and developing bilateral anti-terrorist activities. U.S.-Russia cooperation also resulted in Russia’s agreement to open up its air space and railways for NATO transports which helped the International Coalition to conduct operation in Afghanistan in its “surge” phase and then to successfully withdraw combat units from that country. U.S.-Russia relations were also instrumental in bridging the positions of the two countries with regard to Iran’s and North Korea’s nuclear problem, with Russia and China voting alongside with the United States on UN Security Council resolutions for sanctions against North Korea and Iran to make them comply with the nuclear safeguards. Yet in various regions of the world, Obama’s policy – initially announced as an innovative breakthrough strategy proved instead to be reactive, aimed not at future perspective, but at dealing with the emerging crises on a case by case basis: in Lybia, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and then finally in Ukraine. The “pivot” to the Asia-Pacific, also announced by Obama’s administration, was formulated without consideration of Russia’s interests in the region, while at the same time causing turbulence in relations with China, and was finally overshadowed by the Ukrainian crisis and then the ISIS offensive in the Middle East. The reset fell prey to the contradictions in U.S.-Russia relations which particularly exacerbated after the events in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine and led to freezing of arms control negotiations and bilateral U.S.-Russia cooperation in the military-political field. The Ukrainian crisis is likely to have long-term negative consequences, and in particular will increase hawkish tendencies in U.S. politics. Yet this does not preclude and to the contrary increases the importance of seeking ways to strengthen stability, searching for possible measures for nuclear weapons limitations which would become applicable after bilateral relations improve. U.S.-Russia cooperation remains essential for resolving key international challenges as well as major regional problems.

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (10) ◽  
pp. 149-166
Author(s):  
Dmitry V. Gordienko ◽  

The paper examines the interests of Russia, the United States and China in the regions of the world and identifies the priorities of Russia's activities in Europe, Central Asia and the Caucasus, the Asia-Pacific region, the Arctic, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America, their comparative assessment with the interests of the United States and China. An approach to assessing the impact of possible consequences of the activities of the United States and China on the realization of Russia's interests is proposed. This makes it possible to identify the priorities of the policy of the Russian Federation in various regions of the world. The results of the analysis can be used to substantiate recommendations to the military-political leadership of our country. It is concluded that the discrepancy between the interests of the United States and China is important for the implementation of the current economic and military policy of the Russian Federation.


2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (12) ◽  
pp. 120-139
Author(s):  
Dmitry V. Gordienko ◽  

The paper examines the interests of Russia, the United States and China in the regions of the world and identifies Russia's priorities in Europe, Central Asia and the Caucasus, the Asia-Pacific region, the Arctic, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America, as well as a comparative assessment with the interests of the United States and China. The results of the study can be used to substantiate recommendations to the military-political leadership of our country. It is concluded that the discrepancy between the interests of the United States and China with the interests of Russia is important for the implementation of the current economic and military policy of the Russian Federation.


2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 296-314
Author(s):  
SEE SENG TAN

AbstractThis paper makes three related points. First, Japan has played an instrumental role in helping to define the shape and substance of multilateralism in Asia in ways deeper than scholarly literature on Asia's regional architecture has allowed. A key driving force behind Japan's contributions is the perceived utility of multilateralism in facilitating Japan's engagement of and/or balancing against China. Second, Japan has been able to achieve this because of the United States' support for Asian multilateralism and Japanese security interests. In the immediate post-Cold War period, Japan facilitated US participation in regional arrangements such as the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation and the ASEAN Regional Forum. But Japanese ambivalence over its dependence on the United States was also apparent in Tokyo's attempts to exclude Washington from the newly formed East Asia Summit in late 2005, despite Japan's felt need to balance China. Japan's reliance on quiet diplomacy and an implicit regional leadership has equally been instrumental to its achievements in regional integration. Third, in the light of Japan's longstanding aim to become a normal military power and adopt a more assertive policy toward China, Japan‒US security ties are likely to deepen with negative consequences for Asian multilateralism. However, if its ties with China and South Korea worsen over their islands disputes in the East China Sea, Japan risks undermining its relations with the United States. How Japan balances its normalization with a continued engagement with multilateralism could be key to a stable and secure Asia.


Author(s):  
J. Y. Parshkova

The article analyses military and technical cooperation of the United States and APAC. After the successful implementation of the first phase of the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA), adopted in September 2009, the United States began to develop a similar plan for the Asia-Pacific region - Asia-Pacific Adaptive Approach. The ultimate goal of such large-scale missile defense deployment is to convince the adversaries that the use of ballistic missiles is useless in military terms and that any attack on the United States and its allies is doomed to failure. The United States are developing military cooperation with its allies and partner countries in the Asia-Pacific region, excluding interests of China and Russia. That may only exacerbate a struggle for power between the three world largest countries and lead to negative consequences - involvement in the arms race.


2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (11) ◽  
pp. 164-179
Author(s):  
Dmitry V. Gordienko ◽  

The strategic and doctrinal documents of the United States, China and the Russian Feder-ation set out the views of the military and political leadership of these countries on how each country presents its main priorities in the field of foreign policy and ensuring global and regional security. This will allow us to formulate the interests of Russia, the United States and China. The paper examines the interests of Russia, the United States and China in the regions of the world and identifies the priorities of Russia's activities in Europe, Central Asia and the Caucasus, the Asia-Pacific region, the Arctic, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America, a comparative assessment with the interests of the United States and China. The proposed ap-proach to assessing the impact of the possible consequences of the activities of the United States and China on the realization of Russia's interests makes it possible to identify the priorities of the policy of the Russian Federation in various regions of the world. The results of the study can be used to substantiate recommenda-tions to the military-political leadership of our country. It is concluded that the discrepancy between the inter-ests of the United States and China is important for the implementation of the current economic and military policy of the Russian Federation.


2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (11) ◽  
pp. 2103-2123
Author(s):  
V.L. Gladyshevskii ◽  
E.V. Gorgola ◽  
D.V. Khudyakov

Subject. In the twentieth century, the most developed countries formed a permanent military economy represented by military-industrial complexes, which began to perform almost a system-forming role in national economies, acting as the basis for ensuring national security, and being an independent military and political force. The United States is pursuing a pronounced militaristic policy, has almost begun to unleash a new "cold war" against Russia and to unwind the arms race, on the one hand, trying to exhaust the enemy's economy, on the other hand, to reindustrialize its own economy, relying on the military-industrial complex. Objectives. We examine the evolution, main features and operational distinctions of the military-industrial complex of the United States and that of the Russian Federation, revealing sources of their military-technological and military-economic advancement in comparison with other countries. Methods. The study uses military-economic analysis, scientific and methodological apparatus of modern institutionalism. Results. Regulating the national economy and constant monitoring of budget financing contribute to the rise of military production, especially in the context of austerity and crisis phenomena, which, in particular, justifies the irrelevance of institutionalists' conclusions about increasing transaction costs and intensifying centralization in the industrial production management with respect to to the military-industrial complex. Conclusions. Proving to be much more efficient, the domestic military-industrial complex, without having such access to finance as the U.S. military monopolies, should certainly evolve and progress, strengthening the coordination, manageability, planning, maximum cost reduction, increasing labor productivity, and implementing an internal quality system with the active involvement of the State and its resources.


Author(s):  
Attarid Awadh Abdulhameed

Ukrainia Remains of huge importance to Russian Strategy because of its Strategic importance. For being a privileged Postion in new Eurasia, without its existence there would be no logical resons for eastward Expansion by European Powers.  As well as in Connection with the progress of Ukrainian is no less important for the USA (VSD, NDI, CIA, or pentagon) and the European Union with all organs, and this is announced by John Kerry. There has always ben Russian Fear and Fear of any move by NATO or USA in the area that it poses a threat to  Russians national Security and its independent role and in funence  on its forces especially the Navy Forces. There for, the Crisis manyement was not Zero sum game, there are gains and offset losses, but Russia does not accept this and want a Zero Sun game because the USA. And European exteance is a Foot hold in Regin Which Russian sees as a threat to its national security and want to monopolize control in the strategic Qirim.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document