| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
147760
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
RUSSIA HAS COME a long way from being perceived as the "sick man of Asia."1 Its initial turbulent post-Soviet years under President Yeltsin gradually gave way to a more confident, stable and assertive Russia under the "Putin-Medvedev tandem." Although Russia today has been hit hard by falling energy prices and Western sanctions imposed on it after Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014, its recent military intervention in Syria shows that Russia still remains a force to be reckoned with and that it still aspires to play a great-power role in world affairs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
141735
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Russia has a dual self-perception deeply rooted in its historical development. It is represented in two competing traditions of defining Russia’s position in the world. While some parts of society view Russia as a part of Europe, others believe that it is a distinct Eurasian power. An academic view – although one less popular among Moscow foreign policy-making elites – defines Russia as a Euro-Pacific power possessing vital interests in Europe and the Asia-Pacific. This article examines recent developments in Russian foreign policy decision-making with a view to interpreting how contemporary dilemmas have featured in the adaptation and rearticulation of the two predominant identity traditions by Russian foreign policy actors since 1991. It also analyses how the beliefs of the situated agents, namely, political elites and bureaucratic, intellectual and business actors at various levels, have contributed to Russia’s interpretation of recent global power shifts. These are examined with particular reference to the ongoing crisis in Russia’s relations with the West, sharply accented in Ukraine, and the emerging significance of the Asia-Pacific for thinking about the Russian foreign policy and its role in the world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
145687
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Both Russia’s 2012 APEC chairmanship and recent dynamics in its dialogue partnership with ASEAN indicate Russia’s intention and ability to act as a constructive player engaged in regional institutional activities in East Asia. However, the implementation of this intention faces both domestic and international limitations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|