Search

Begin New Search Political Geography Russia Publication Year within 5 Years

1221. Jack F. Matlock and American Diplomacy with Russia

Author:
Olga Krasnyak
Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
American Diplomacy
Institution:
American Diplomacy
Abstract:
Editor’s note: Dr. Krasnyak’s research was supported by the Matlock Archives Short-term Fellows in Residence Grant. The grant was provided by the Center of Slavic, Eurasian, and East European Studies (CSEEES) of Duke University. US-Russia relations are currently at a low point without promise for improvement in the short term. Russia and the US once again seem more likely to be talking about each other than with each other. Research into the career of Jack F. Matlock, a long-term diplomat and an Ambassador to the Soviet Union, offers insights into ways to conduct diplomacy to advance American interests with Russia. Ambassador Matlock’s contributions to diplomacy are important for understanding the history of US diplomacy with Russia; the Matlock archive collection at Duke University is a rich source for researching and teaching diplomacy.
Topic:
Cold War, Diplomacy, History, and Literature
Political Geography:
Russia, Soviet Union, and United States of America

1222. Russian New and Experimental Nuclear-Capable Missiles: A Short Primer

Author:
Christopher Mihal
Publication Date:
12-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Fletcher Security Review
Institution:
The Fletcher School, Tufts University
Abstract:
Russia has tested a wide variety of new weapon systems in an effort to modernize and upgrade its nuclear forces. Russian President Vladimir Putin has not been shy about publicly discussing these new weapon systems or the capabilities of several of them, though a few are not currently feasible for any sort of deployment. More of a threat, however, are the two weapons that Putin did not boast about: the SSC8 and SSC-X-31, both of which were almost certainly in violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. While these missiles represent a threat in and of themselves, a far greater threat is the indication that Russia does not feel bound by international agreements. These missiles have already had their first successful casualty in the death of the INF Treaty, and they may have also dealt a mortal blow to the New START Treaty. To adequately understand Russia’s new nuclear arsenal, one must simultaneously look at the weapon systems themselves as well as the context in which they are being developed. Russia continues to view both the U.S. and NATO as supreme existential threats. Unfortunately for Russia, both the U.S. and NATO have greater military, political, and economic power, and so Russia has long sought avenues to achieve its national objectives without conventional military confrontation.386 Russia has turned to two primary means of ensuring supremacy: enhancing its nuclear arsenal, which it views as a powerful deterrent that is cheaper to maintain than a large conventional military, as well as ‘hybrid’ war, which encompasses a number of techniques just shy of war including cyber warfare, informatsionaya voyna (information warfare) and a large amount of maskirovka (deception) in both military and non-military realms.387 Putin has emphasized information control and manipulation since coming to power, ranging from direct methods such as election interference and masking the identity of irregular forces in Ukraine, to more subtle methods of dezinformatsiya (disinformation), of which the exaggerated capabilities of Russia’s new nuclear weapons are prime examples. Dezinformatsiya is using false or misleading information and disseminating it to credible news outlets. This causes opponents to either act upon the incorrect information, thus wasting time and resources, or it undermines the credibility of the news outlet when it is proven false.388 Both of these goals of dezinformatsiya are being met with the current furor regarding Russia’s new nuclear weapons. This primer aims to dispel some of the false or misleading claims regarding these weapons and present a factual foundation from which to react to Russia’s new weapon developments and how they fit into Russia’s strategic vision.
Topic:
Defense Policy, NATO, National Security, Nuclear Weapons, Cybersecurity, and Weapons
Political Geography:
Russia, Eurasia, and United States of America

1223. "Systemic Risks": A Conversation on Nuclear Technology and Deterrence with Dr. Vipin Narang

Author:
Dylan Land
Publication Date:
12-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Fletcher School, Tufts University
Abstract:
Fletcher Security Review (FSR): What do you perceive as the greatest threat to global nuclear security? Where do you see the greatest potential for the outbreak of nuclear war? ​ Vipin Narang (VN): Rather than focusing on regions, I see three trends which I think we should be concerned about. One is the return of a great power arms race, and a lot of this was exacerbated in the Trump administration. Even as we head into the Biden administration—which extended the New START Treaty with Russia for five years—Russia and China are modernizing their nuclear forces at breakneck speed. They are worried primarily about U.S. missile defenses, which at this point are unconstrained. The United States has a variety of missile defense systems at the regional level which work pretty well, as well as the national missile defense system, which doesn’t…yet. You will often hear that the national missile defense system does not work very well and that is true—the success rate is around 60 percent in simulated tests. It may be difficult to ever get it to work perfectly or even well, but it is the prospect that the United States might get it to work that really drives modernization efforts in Russia and China..... ​
Topic:
Nuclear Weapons, Science and Technology, Risk, Deterrence, and Interview
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Global Focus, and United States of America

1224. The Future of the Eurasian Economic Union

Author:
Katia Glod
Publication Date:
12-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Fletcher Security Review
Institution:
The Fletcher School, Tufts University
Abstract:
The Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) was established in 2015 and incorporates five countries of the former Soviet bloc—Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Russia. The declared goal of the project was to create a common market with 180 million consumers, coordinate economic policies, and eliminate non-tariff barriers. The idea behind the EAEU was to revive the economic ties that had broken down when the Soviet Union dissolved by facilitating better growth and more trade. Its member states claimed that the EAEU would emulate the European Union (EU) by adopting a system based on clear and transparent rules to promote free trade. The reality, however, is proving different. So far, the EAEU has failed to transform into a full-fledged economic union. Many outstanding issues require greater political will from the member states to work out common approaches and practices.
Topic:
Economics, Tariffs, Free Trade, and Soviet Union
Political Geography:
Russia, Eurasia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Armenia, and Belarus

1225. The UN Security Council: Stress Tested

Author:
David M Malone
Publication Date:
12-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Fletcher Security Review
Institution:
The Fletcher School, Tufts University
Abstract:
After the United Nations’ (UN) 75th anniversary, it is easy today to forget that this most central and far-reaching of all multilateral organizations was born in very high hopes of its permanent relevancy in maintaining international peace and security. But by baking in a veto for each of the five victorious World War II powers—or deemed as such by the 1945 governments in Washington and London, the godparents of the UN Security Council—the seeds of its frequent spells of semiparalysis were sown, spells which have been intensifying for at least the past four years. Indeed, the council arguably operated at near-peak effectiveness only during the years between 1987 – 1994, when the Cold War was ending and then briefly, as of 1990, appeared to have ended. However, misjudgments in Washington over the extent to which Moscow’s alignment with the thinking of Western capitals could be taken for granted—an attitude bitterly resented at the time by the new Russian Federation—ended that brief spell.
Topic:
United Nations, History, Multilateralism, and UN Security Council
Political Geography:
Russia, Global Focus, and United States of America

1226. Can and Will Germany Be a Viable Partner in a U.S. “Pushback” Strategy Towards Russia?

Author:
Hannes Adomeit
Publication Date:
05-2021
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies
Abstract:
Joe Biden, as presidential candidate, is on record as having stated that “the biggest threat to America right now in terms of breaking up our − our security and our alliances − is Russia.” As president, he asserted, “the days of the United States rolling over in the face of Russia’s aggressive actions are over.” The first months of his tenure in office have given some substance to such claims and confirmed that the new administration aims at containing and counteracting Russian malign behavior and to impose costs so as to affect the Kremlin’s risk calculus. Can Germany − and most likely will it − be a viable partner in such a U.S. strategy?
Topic:
Defense Policy, Diplomacy, Military Strategy, Hegemony, Leadership, Conflict, and Rivalry
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Germany, North America, and United States of America

1227. Russian Crisis Behavior, Nagorno-Karabakh and Turkey?

Author:
Richard Giragosian, David G. Lewis, and Graeme P. Herd
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies
Abstract:
On September 27, 2020, Azerbaijan initiated a war to retake the disputed Armenian-populated enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh and seven districts of Azerbaijan held by Armenian forces.1 The forty-four-day war resulted in a resounding defeat for the Armenian forces and only halted with the acceptance of a Russian-imposed agreement for a cessation of hostilities on November 9-10, 2020. Although the war was initially expected to unfold as a war of attrition with an eventual stalemate based on the advantages of terrain of the Armenian defenders, reality differed in terms of duration, intensity, and outcome.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Military Strategy, Territorial Disputes, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Armenia, and Azerbaijan

1228. Understanding Hypersonic Weapons: Managing the Allure and the Risks

Author:
Shannon Bugos and Kingston Reif
Publication Date:
09-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Arms Control Association
Abstract:
RESEARCH & REPORTS The debate concerning hypersonic weapons has gained increased attention in recent years as the United States has poured billions of dollars—and plans to pour billions more—into accelerating the development of hypersonic weapons and as China and Russia make headway in developing and deploying their own such weapons. The Pentagon is funding no less than eight prototype hypersonic weapons programs with the aim of fielding an initial capability of at least some of those by 2022. The U.S. rush to field hypersonic weapons merits a more critical examination by the Biden administration and Congress given the many unanswered questions about their rationale, technical viability, cost-effectiveness, and escalatory risks. It is past time for Congress to demand these answers before the military begins fielding the weapons in great numbers. This new report outlines the scope of the unanswered questions about the case for hypersonic weapons, details the underappreciated risks to stability posed by the weapons, assesses the viability of arms control as a tool to reduce these risks, and suggests recommended action items for Congress to better its understanding about the Pentagon’s plans for the weapons, eliminate potential redundancies in weapons capabilities, and mitigate stability risks.
Topic:
Arms Control and Proliferation, Nuclear Weapons, and Hypersonic Weapons
Political Geography:
Russia, China, and United States of America

1229. Prospects for US-Russia Relations in the Context of the Biden-Putin Summit

Author:
Giorgio Bilanishvili
Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Georgian Foundation for Strategic International Studies -GFSIS
Abstract:
Today, the main vector of Russia's foreign policy continues to go through a confrontation with the West in the international arena, especially with the United States. This fact is important for international politics and, even more so, for the context of Georgia's national security. As a whole, so far, the Biden administration's policy toward Russia is not different from that of its predecessors - the Trump administration and the Obama administration. Its main characteristics are poor bilateral relations and sanctions imposed on Russia, since 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea and launched a military intervention in eastern Ukraine. At the same time, the US expert community is inclined to say that balancing China's growing influence is a top foreign policy priority of the Biden administration and the realization of this policy could alter US foreign policy vis-à-vis Russia. The Biden-Putin summit held in Geneva on June 16 this year should be understood as a starting point of the US administration's relations with Moscow. Most probably, the parties have "tested the ground" on many different topics, including those where their positions differ the most. Although, this summit did not bring a drastic change between the two countries, which indeed was less expected, but it has relatively increased the dynamics of the relations between the two countries.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, National Security, and Bilateral Relations
Political Geography:
Russia and United States of America

1230. To Grow or Not to Grow: Belarus and Lithuania

Author:
Thorvaldur Gylfason and Eduard Hochreiter
Publication Date:
09-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies (WIIW)
Abstract:
We compare the economic growth performance of Belarus and Lithuania since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Our interest in this country pair is driven by the two countries´ interwoven histories as well as by the fact that Belarus remains autocratic and strongly tied to Russia, while Lithuania has reinvented itself as a democratic market economy fully integrated into the EU. Our aim is to better understand the extent to which the growth differential between the two countries can be traced to increased efficiency, i.e., total factor productivity, in the use of capital and other resources via, inter alia, better institutions (intensive growth) as opposed to sheer accumulation of capital (extensive growth), the hallmark of Soviet economic growth. To this end, we compare the development of some key determinants of growth in the two countries since the 1990s. A simple growth accounting model suggests that advances in education at all levels, good governance, and institutional reforms have played a more significant role in raising economic output and efficiency in Lithuania than in Belarus, which remains marred by problems related to weak governance as well as autocratic rule. Further, as in Estonia and Latvia, the EU perspective has made a significant contribution to growth in Lithuania. The Russian connection has done less for Belarus. Finally, we touch upon the impact of the corona virus on the economies of the two countries.
Topic:
European Union, Economy, Economic Growth, Post-Soviet Space, and Autocracy
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Lithuania, and Belarus