| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
175624
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article recounts Russia’s response to NATO’s eastern enlargement. It argues that NATO enlargement was seen as perfectly acceptable in Moscow, as long as it was inclusive of Russia, which would gain in status as America’s key partner and ally. Once it became apparent that Russia would not be invited to join, the narrative changed to active opposition, as Boris Yeltsin sought domestic legitimacy from being perceived as thedefender of the national interest against Western encroachment. The article highlights the fluid nature of so called national interests, which are defined and redefined in ways affording the greatest legitimation to the political elites.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
160713
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In this article, I examine Russia-US relations, focusing on their Asia Pacific dimension. I argue that the United States and Russia hold widely divergent visions of international order. Washington remains committed to the idea of US-led hegemony based on Western liberal values whereas Moscow champions a multipolar great power order founded upon the balance of power, Westphalian sovereignty, and the diversity of values. I find strong affinity between Moscow's foreign policy discourse and Hedley Bull's version of the English School in international relations theory. Viewed from the English School perspective, the layer of fundamental norms and institutions linking Moscow and Washington together as citizens of one international society has become dangerously thin. This inevitably affects Russia-US interaction in the Asia Pacific and makes their cooperation on pressing security issues, such as North Korea, difficult.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|