scholarly journals The Conflict in Syria from the Perspective of the Russian Federation

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dominik Karczmarzyk
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Initial Phase ◽  
Peace Process ◽  
The United States ◽  
The West ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Syrian Conflict

Following the outbreak of the conflict in Syria, the United States and Russian Federation became involved in the peace process aimed at stabilizing the internal situation. In the initial phase of this process, Russia introduced political plans to resolve the dispute, while successively blocking UNSC projects calling for the resignation of Bashar al-Assad. As a consequence of the changes that took place in Russia’s foreign policy after the annexation of Crimea, it began conducting military activities aimed at ousting opposition forces from Syria and preventing the West from making any possible intervention. Due to the lack of a decisive response from the United States, within a few years the Syrian regime’s offensive, militarily supported by Russia, reduced the opposition forces supported by the US to the defense. As a result of Russi’s intense involvement in the process of resolving the Syrian conflict, this country has once again started to play a key role in the international arena. The conflict in Syria has highlighted the Russian government’s aspirations to rebuild its state as a superpower.

Trans-Atlantic Relations in Germany's Foreign Policy

2015 ◽  
Vol 59 (11) ◽  
pp. 38-46
Author(s):  
A. Kokeev
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The West ◽  
German Government ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Eu

Relations between Germany, the US and NATO today are the core of transatlantic links. After the Cold War and the reunification of Germany, NATO has lost its former importance to Germany which was not a "frontline state" anymore. The EU acquired a greater importance for German politicians applying both for certain political independence and for establishing of a broad partnership with Russia and China. The task of the European Union Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) development has been regarded by Berlin as a necessary component of the NATO's transformation into a “balanced Euro-American alliance”, and the realization of this project as the most important prerequisite for a more independent foreign policy. Germany’s refusal to support the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 led to the first serious crisis in US Germany relations. At the same time, there was no radical break of the deeply rooted Atlanticism tradition in German policy. It was Angela Merkel as a new head of the German government (2005) who managed to smooth largely disagreements in relations with the United States. Atlanticism remains one of the fundamental foreign policy elements for any German government, mostly because Berlin’s hope for deepening of the European integration and transition to the EU CFSP seems unrealistic in the foreseeable future. However, there is still a fundamental basis of disagreements emerged in the transatlantic relationship (reduction of a military threat weakening Berlin’s dependence from Washington, and the growing influence of Germany in the European Union). According to the federal government's opinion, Germany's contribution to the NATO military component should not be in increasing, but in optimizing of military expenses. However, taking into account the incipient signs of the crisis overcoming in the EU, and still a tough situation around Ukraine, it seems that in the medium-term perspective one should expect further enhancing of Germany’s participation in NATO military activities and, therefore, a growth in its military expenses. In Berlin, there is a wide support for the idea of the European army. However, most experts agree that it can be implemented only when the EU develops the Common Foreign and Defense Policy to a certain extent. The US Germany espionage scandals following one after another since 2013 have seriously undermined the traditional German trust to the United States as a reliable partner. However, under the impact of the Ukrainian conflict, the value of military-political dimension of Germany’s transatlantic relations and its dependence on the US and NATO security guarantees increased. At the same time, Washington expects from Berlin as a recognized European leader a more active policy toward Russia and in respect of some other international issues. In the current international political situation, the desire to expand political influence in the world and achieve a greater autonomy claimed by German leaders seems to Berlin only possible in the context of transatlantic relations strengthening and solidarity within the NATO the only military-political organization of the West which is able to ensure the collective defense for its members against the external threats. However, it is important to take into consideration that not only the value of the United States and NATO for Germany, but also the role of Germany in the North Atlantic Alliance as a “representative of European interests” has increased. The role of Germany as a mediator in establishing the West–Russia relations remains equally important.

scholarly journals Emotives in the speech of linguistic personality of the politician in the US and Russian media discourse: comparative analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 11-20
Author(s):  
Alesya Dmitrievna Gavrish ◽  
Marina Rostislavovna Zheltukhina
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
The United States ◽  
Emotional Impact ◽  
Media Discourse ◽  
Media Communication ◽  
The Us ◽  
Political Linguistics ◽  
Russian Media ◽  
The Russian Federation

The relevance of this research is substantiated by the growing importance of the emotional aspect of modern media communication discourse, as well as the by the fact that linguistic personality of the politician in the realities of current electoral systems of the United States and the Russian Federation can be an instrument of emotional impact upon the audience, first and foremost with the use of emotive lexicon. The goal of this article lies in description of the results of comparative study of emotives in the US and Russian media discourse, determined in the speech of linguistic personality of the politician. The research material leans on media speeches of the candidates for the presidency of the United States and the Russian Federation, covering the period from May 2016 to April 2018. Methodological framework is comprised of the linguoecological and emotionological approaches, namely the linguistic theory of emotions of V. I. Shakhovsky, who outlines the three semantic statuses of emotivity of the lexicon. It is established that linguistic personality of the politician in the US and Russian media discourse is actively and diversely represented via emotive lexicon. However, the degree of intensity of emotional manifestations of linguistic personality of the Russian politician is greater than the verbal manifestations of the US politician. The determined emotives and their frequency in the speech of linguistic personality of the politician in the US and Russian media discourse are a new achievement for the discursive linguistics, pragmalinguistics, and emotionology. This research contributes to the development of psycholinguistics, political linguistics, and media linguistics, as well as further study of emotives in the political media discourse of different linguistic cultures from the comparative perspective.

Us sanctional economic policy as a geopolitical reality

2021 ◽  
pp. 245-252
Author(s):  
Elena Stepanovna Ustinovich
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Economic Policy ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Economic Sanctions ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
The Political ◽  
Economic Relations ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Russian Federation

This article analyzes the policy of economic sanctions against the Russian Federation since 2008. It’s shown that the sanctions anti-Russian economic policy is the direction of the US foreign policy of the last decade. For many decades, the state of trade and economic relations between the Russian Federation and the United States left much to be desired and did not develop in a normalized format. The volume of trade turnover practically did not manifest itself in the growth dynamics. And both countries were faced with the task of solving this problem. However, the last decade, and especially the events of 2014 and subsequent economic sanctions against the Russian Federation, have shown the role and impact of the political factor in the state of economic relations between the two countries. In this regard, the period of development of trade and economic relations of the last five years is exclusively in the political plane and it can be designated as the period of the US sanctions economic policy towards Russia. They are implementing this policy jointly with a number of North American countries and European Union member states, as a result of which it becomes a geopolitical reality in the modern period of international economic relations and, unfortunately, does not contribute to their normalization. The research methodology includes an interdisciplinary political and economic research method. A primary analysis of sources, as well as policy documents of the leaders of two countries — the United States and the Russian Federation at the end of 2014 and 2015 was carried out. As a scientific and practical result, a recommendation for the Russian Federation was proposed based on the results of the incessant sanctions pressure — not to remain in isolation, to establish contacts with countries in a new format.

Russia’s foreign policy in the age of Boris Yeltsin through the eyes of Slovak diplomats (1993–1999)

2020 ◽  
pp. 151-171
Author(s):  
Viktor V. Nikitin ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
The United States ◽  
National Interests ◽  
Archival Documents ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Basic Approaches ◽  
The One ◽  
Foreign Ministry

ased on archival documents from the Embassy of the Slovak Republic in Moscow, which are being introduced into scholarly use for the first time, this essay discusses the two basic approaches of Slovak diplomats to Russian foreign policy. The first approach, utilised during the era of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Andrei V. Kozyrev, was described by Slovak representatives in Russia criticising its pro-Western policy that they said did not meet Russian national interests, but was then being pursued by the then top of the Russian Foreign Ministry. They saw the main problems of Russian diplomacy as being the deterioration of the socio-economic situation of the population of the Russian Federation on the one hand, and Kozyrev's emphasis on “strategic partnership” with the United States on the other, which gave rise to growing anti-American sentiments both among the political elite and the Russian electorate. This led, in particular, to a situation where even the most important bilateral agreements between Russia and the United States were perceived by the deputies of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation as a betrayal of Russian national interests. The second approach, which appeared in Slovak diplomatic reports under the next head of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Evgeny M. Primakov, was characterised by, after modifying both their rhetoric and approach to foreign policy, criticism of the minister, which resulted in an attempt by Western countries, especially the United States, to have him removed from his post. This is because Slovakia did not need even a hint of a conflict between Russia and the West, since both the Western and the post-Soviet spaces became the most important and, in a sense, even irreplaceable areas of Slovak foreign policy.

Israel will keep shooting Palestinian protesters

2018 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Prime Minister ◽  
West Bank ◽  
The United States ◽  
The West ◽  
Security Forces ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Independent Investigation ◽  
The Us

Significance However, the United States has already blocked a Kuwaiti-drafted statement expressing “outrage” at Israeli security forces’ killings of protesters and calling for an independent investigation. The demonstrations by thousands of Gaza Palestinians approaching the Israeli security fence coincided with the formal opening of the new US embassy in Jerusalem. Impacts The turn in international opinion against Israel could bolster Iran and its Lebanese protégé Hezbollah. Events in Gaza make progress in the stalled Egypt-backed ‘reconciliation’ agreement with the West Bank authorities even more unlikely. Few countries will follow the US example of moving their embassies to Jerusalem, despite Israeli inducements. Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s recent foreign policy successes could bolster his position against corruption investigations.

AFRICAN POLICY COMPONENT OF THE US, PRC AND RUSSIAN FEDERATION (Part 1)

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (11) ◽  
pp. 132-150
Author(s):  
D. V. GORDIENKO ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
The United States ◽  
African Region ◽  
Dominant Position ◽  
Republic Of China ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Military ◽  
The Impact

The paper considers the assessment of the impact of the African component of the policy of the United States of America, the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation on the national security of these countries. An approach to comparing this influence is proposed, which allows us to identify the priorities of Russia's policy in Africa and other regions of the world. A comparison of the African component of the policy of the states of the “strategic triangle” Russia – China – United States can be used to justify recommendations to the military and political leadership of our country. It is concluded that the African component of the policy of the United States, China and Russia occupies a dominant position in the implementation of the current economic and military policy in the African region.

scholarly journals Anti-Russian sanctions due to the Ukrainian crisis of 2014: assessment of consequences and prospects

2020 ◽  
pp. 39-48
Author(s):  
Sergei Valer'evich Krivov ◽  
Tat'yana Vladimirovna Baranova ◽  
Sergey Valer'evich Starkin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economic Effects ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Western Countries ◽  
Policy Goals ◽  
The Russian Federation

The subject of this research is the sanctions imposed by Western countries against Russia in response to the Ukrainian events of 2014. Leaning on the available empirical data and expert assessments conducted by various financial and analytical structures, an attempt is made to identify the nature and severity of impact of sanction pressure upon different economic sectors of the Russian Federation, implemented for achieving the foreign policy goals. Emphasis is placed on the absence of uniform sanctions policy due to the specificity of foreign policy goals and peculiarities of sanction mechanisms used by the United States and the European Union. It is underlined that anti-Russian sanctions and Russia’s response in many instances are substantiated by the preceding trends in strategic vision of foreign and domestic policy by the Russian Federation, as well as the nature of its relations with the West. The conclusion is made that the focus in studying the problem of sanctions has shifted towards the political analysis and further analytical and scientific examination. The author believes that in the conditions of uncertainty of the economic effects and absence of common approaches towards understanding the prospects of sanctions policy by the Western countries the two main scenarios of its further development. It would either gradually fade out without “renewed efforts”, slowly negating its practical effect, and prompt the United States and the European Union intensify the dialogue with Russia, avoiding the problematic issues on the status of Crimea, implication in the events in South-Eastern Ukraine, etc.; or it can lead to full “politicization” of sanctions polity and its integration into the negotiation process on settlement of the Ukrainian situation and turning into a powerful tool for conducting negotiations.

Russia's Strategic Priorities in the Global Monetary System from the Point of View of Ensuring Foreign Economic Security

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 297-305
Author(s):  
E. B. Malykh ◽  
V. I. Pakhomov
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Trade ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economic Security ◽  
Medium Term ◽  
The Us ◽  
Alternative Means ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Imf

The presented study analyzes the reasons for the need to move away from the US dollar (hereinafter referred to as the dollar) as a universal means of payment in international trade based on the existing threats, examines alternative means of international payments, and identifies their benefits and drawbacks in the context of Russia’s economic security.Aim. The study aims to identify and characterize the means of international payments that fall in line with Russia’s strategic priorities from the perspective of economic security.Tasks. The author considers the risks of using the dollar in international payments and reserves, assesses various means of international payments from the perspective of Russia’s strategic interests, and evaluates the possibility of substituting the dollar with alternative means of international payments.Methods. This study analyzes information from the International Economic Forums, statistics of the Central Bank of Russia, Federal State Statistics Service, Decree of the President of the Russian Federation on the economic security strategy of the Russian Federation until 2030, reports of news agencies, and works of Russian and foreign authors on the subject.Results. Based on the results of the conducted study, the author draws several conclusions. Due to many factors, the most important of them being the volume of trade in dollars, the dollar will remain the world’s leading currency in international trade. However, given that de-dollarization is a global process, the existing trends will amplify. A supranational currency is unlikely to appear for a number of reasons. First, the obvious opposition of the United States due to its unwillingness to let go of such a powerful lever of economic well-being and political influence as the use of the dollar as a global means of payment. The US would probably agree to creating a supranational currency in the medium term if the global process of de-dollarization reaches critical values. Second, the financial and trade centers of the euro and renminbi area are likely to focus on developing their own currencies, especially given the growing global GDP and China’s trade. Creating a supranational currency based on the existing structure of the International monetary Fund (hereinafter — the IMF), following the example of Special Drawing Rights (SDR), with the IMF virtually controlled by the United States, will not eliminate the threat of the currency being used as an instrument of political pressure on individual countries. Replacing the dollar with such kind of supranational currency does not serve the interests of Russia’s economic security. A potential alternative involves creating a supranational currency based on a structure that is independent of the IMF. In this case, the obstacles would include the obvious opposition of the US and its allies and the potential influence of the US on the emission of the supranational currency using its foreign political resources to affect the decisions made by other countries. Using national currencies in international trade in the medium term under the influence of globalization would lead to a formation of multiple currency centers. These centers would most likely be the dollar, euro, renminbi, and ruble.Conclusions. The creation of a ruble-based International Monetary Center with the CIS, BRIC countries (except China), and Turkey serves Russia’s strategic interests. Further consolidation around the ruble would require implementing a financial sustainability policy, maintaining the stability of the macroeconomic environment, creating an international bank similar to the IMF with payments made in rubles, strengthening offshore ruble areas, and increasing high-tech exports.

scholarly journals Official US position on recognition of independence of Abkhazia and South

2016 ◽  
pp. 113-125
Author(s):  
Olesya Zvezdova
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Presidential Elections ◽  
The United States ◽  
Press Releases ◽  
South Ossetia ◽  
Us Congress ◽  
Official Position ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Russian Federation

This article deals with the official position of the United States regarding independence recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia by the Russian Federation in 2008. The basic documents of the State Department, Presidential Administration and the US Congress, which are published on the official page, are analyzed. The applications and interviews of the President, Secretary of State and 124 other state officials are considered. It is concluded that Abkhazia and South Ossetia are Georgian regions; the United States does not recognize its independence and calls on the Russian Federation to reverse its recognition of the “de facto states”. US will not recognize the results of any parliamentary and presidential elections in these areas and only Georgian authority is considered as legitimate. Agreements that were signed by the Russian Federation and the leaders of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in 2014 and 2015 respectively have no legal force and are only Russian provocative step towards strengthening its influence in the region. Resolutions of Congress accuse Russia of occupation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and call to withdraw Russian troops from these territories. Since 2014 the situation in eastern Ukraine is compared with the situation in Abkhazia and South Ossetia in some press releases and speeches of the US official representatives.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document