Russia’s Place in a Polycentric Naval Setup
With its extremely long coastline, four strong fleets and abundant maritime resources, Russia cannot be viewed as just a continental power. A combination of rich naval traditions, enormous economic potential, technological expertise and independent foreign policy puts Russia in a category of global sea powers. That is exactly how it looked for most of the
20th century. Suffice to say that by the end of the Cold War era, Soviet warships and nuclear submarines posed a serious challenge to the US Navy. In the 1990s came a drastic decline in the naval capabilities of the country, but it did not last long – at any rate, not in historical terms. The early 21st century has been marked by an effort to rebuild the Russian Navy and increase its activities. Whilst trying to modernise its naval potential, Russia does not aim to change the status quo and expand its sphere of influence at the expense of others. Its primary purpose is to discourage other powers from dragging it into conflicts which, in the case of Russia’s involvement and given its size and military might, could aggravate the international geopolitical order. This course is generally conducive to a greater polycentrism in global naval affairs, and a more stable world.
The given book constitutes of articles represented on the II international conference "Security and Cooperation in the South China Sea: Actual Problems and Conflict Regulation." held in the Institute of Institute of Oriental Studies of RAS on the 18th of June, 2015.
Th is monograph “Th e Greek Islands of Catherine the Great: Russia’s Imperial Realities in the Mediterranean” by Professor Elena B. Smilianskaia of the National Research University Higher School of Economics, investigates the history of the Russian-Ottoman War of 1768–1774. It is based on a wide array of historical sources, among them archival records from the collections of the Russian State Naval Archive (RGAVMF), the Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts (RGADA), the Russian State Military History Archive (RGVIA), and others. Th e text also contains visual materials gathered in Greece. Th e book proceeds in two parts: the fi rst discusses the development of political authority over the Greek islands in the Aegean Sea (otherwise referred to as the Archipelago islands), which came under Russian control in the 1770s, while the second examines the creation of a Russian naval base on Paros. Th e appendices include a journal kept by a participant of the expedition, K.L. von Tölle (an archival manuscript translated from the German and annotated by Anna Friesen) and M.G. Kokovtsev’s 1786 essay, “A Description of the Archipelago.” During the years from 1770 to 1775 Russian naval commanders Aleksei Orlov, Grigorii Spiridov, and Andrei Elmanov pursued Catherine’s goals in the Mediterranean, which involved constructing a Russian naval base and liberating Orthodox Christians from Ottoman rule. Th is was a unique moment in Russian history, as it brought the fi rst overseas territories — thirty islands in the Aegean Sea — under Russian control, and it provided an opportunity for future Russian military and political presence in the Mediterranean. Beginning in 1771, when the fi rst archipelago islands took an oath to Empress Catherine II, the leaders of the Archipelago expedition endeavored to reform government and taxation, set up a Senate and chancellery, create an autocephalous Orthodox Church, and form an independent Synod. In accordance with the Empress’s wishes, they established a special school for Greek children on the island of Naxos. However, according to the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca (1774) between Russia and the Ottoman Empire, the Russian fl eet had to leave the Eastern Mediterranean and Archipelago islands. Th e Russians also abandoned a partiallybuilt military base on Paros. Th ese departures stranded the islands’ inhabitants, who for fi ve years had considered themselves ‘subjects’ of the Russian empress. Th e Russian Empire left them only with the possibility of migrating to southern Russia. Catherine the Great’s Mediterranean policy provoked a discussion about the extreme nature of her colonial ambitions in that region. Th is book debunks the theories that ‘the Greek idea’ constituted merely a political game for Russia and that Russian activity on the Aegean islands was only military in nature. At the same time it demonstrates that Catherine II’s colonial ambitions were in fact rather limited compared to those of other contemporaneous powers. Not being able to support a colony in the eastern Mediterranean, Russia dreamed only about establishing a small Russian military base that would be surrounded by liberated self-governed Greek territories under Catherine II’s protection. When the liberated Greek islands became an obstacle to enlarging Russian territory on the Black sea coast, however, they were exchanged primarily for Crimea.
Korean-Russian Jeju Forum 2012 was organized by the East Asia Foundation and was dedicated to relations between Russia and the countries of the Korean Peninsula.
Over the last quarter of the century relations between Russia and Poland are balancing between trying to understand the burden of mutual guilt and a desire to construct non-emotional pragmatic relations. Sources of tension vary. In particular, it is the desire of Poland to position itself as a valued player in NATO and the EU and the role distance between the two countries in IR system, which does not allow Russia to maintain an equal political dialogue with Poland. In fact, Poland is not afraid of a direct threat from Russia, but the worst scenario is the one in which Russia without changing the content of its imperial policy can be accepted as a full partner in the international community. The evolution of Russian statehood and national specifics of democracy is largely determined the assessment of the prospects of Russian politics in Poland. The mistake of Polish diplomacy last years was that it took no direct efforts to improve relations with Russia, but only tried to impose the dialogue on Russian authorities. Diplomatic methods were designed to hurt Russian interests and to create a topic for discussion. In response, after 2006 Russia chose the tactic of ignoring Poland. But, ignoring Polish authorities, Russian politicians acted similarly with other political forces. In Poland among influential political forces, there was and there is still no loyalty to Russia. For Russian interests it is no matter who are or will be in power in Poland. However as a rule, it is an important factor that foreign policy decisions are de facto within the competences of the President and the government, as well as experiencing a significant influence of the parliamentary forces. Recent trends show no tangible innovations in bilateral programme. But innovations appear in multilateral and conflict enough issues, such as deployment of US missile defense system in Poland or Polish supervision of "Eastern Partnership" programme. The main problem is low self-sufficiency of bilateral relations and excessive influence of third countries. Any efforts to normalize bilateral relations will be meaningless until the weight of bilateral relations really increases to each of the party.
Russia-Polish relations, foreign policy of Poland, Polish-American relations, EU, Common Foreign and Security Policy, NATO
The article deals with the processes of building the information society and security in the CIS in accordance with modern conditions. The main objective is to review existing mechanisms for the formation of a common information space in the Eurasian region, regarded as one of the essential aspects of international integration. The theoretical significance of the work is to determine the main controls of the regional information infrastructure, improved by the development of communication features in a rapid process.The practical component consists in determining the future policies of the region under consideration in building the information society. The study authors used historical-descriptive approach and factual analysis of events having to do with drawing the contours of today's global information society in the regional refraction.
The main result is the fact that the development of information and communication technologies, and network resources leads to increased threats of destabilization of the socio-political situation in view of the emergence of multiple centers that generate the ideological and psychological background. Keeping focused information policy can not be conceived without the collective participation of States in the first place, members of the group leaders of integration - Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. Currently, only produced a comprehensive approach to security in the information field in the Eurasian region, but the events in the world, largely thanks to modern technology, make the search for an exit strategy with a much higher speed. The article contributes to the science of international relations, engaging in interdisciplinary thinking that is associated with a transition period in the development of society. A study of current conditions in their relation to the current socio-political patterns of the authors leads to conclusions about the need for cooperation with the network centers of power in the modern information environment, the formation of alternative models of networking, especially in innovation and scientific and technical areas of information policy, and expanding the integration of the field in this region on the information content.