The Geoeconomics of the Russian–Japanese Territorial Dispute
Russia’s effort to become a geoeconomic power in Asia alters the dynamics of the territorial dispute with Japan. Both Moscow and Tokyo aim to prevent Russia’s geoeconomic “pivot to Asia” becoming merely a pivot to China. Yet, a settlement is obstructed by the growing geoeconomic value of the Southern Kurils and Japan’s lack of an autonomous foreign policy.
The Asia-Pacific is, and in the foreseeable future will remain, the safest and least problematic part of the world as far as Russian security interests are concerned. The Russian Military Doctrine of 2014 clearly identifies NATO expansion and NATO activities close to the Russian borders as the main sources of external threat, alongside growing religious and political extremism and ethnic conflicts in the regions close to Russia. The Asia-Pacific is never mentioned directly. In the post-Soviet countries, Russia perceives that it is engaged in a decades-long, zero-sum game against the European Union and the United States. The relations with a number of European countries are poisoned by painful historical memories and ideological differences. The Ukrainian crisis already has led to some long-term changes in Russian defense policies, including the establishment of a new military infrastructure on Russia’s western borders.1
The article discusses the problem of interpretation in Japanese historiography of the Joint Declaration of 1956, which ended the state of war between the USSR and Japan. Based on a comprehensive analysis of the documents, the author presents his view about historic significance of the Declaration and assesses the arguments put by the representatives of the academic community of Japan.
Moscow has progressively replaced geopolitics with geoeconomics as power is recognised to derive from the state’s ability to establish a privileged position in strategic markets and transportation corridors. The objective is to bridge the vast Eurasian continent to reposition Russia from the periphery of Europe and Asia to the centre of a new constellation. Moscow’s ‘Greater Europe’ ambition of the previous decades produced a failed Western-centric foreign policy culminating in excessive dependence on the West. Instead of constructing Gorbachev’s ‘Common European Home’, the ‘leaning-to-one-side’ approach deprived Russia of the market value and leverage needed to negotiate a more favourable and inclusive Europe. Eurasian integration offers Russia the opportunity to address this ‘overreliance’ on the West by using the Russia’s position as a Eurasian state to advance its influence in Europe.
Offering an account steeped in Russian economic statecraft and power politics, this book offers a rare glimpse into the dominant narratives of Russian strategic culture. It explains how the country’s outlook adjusts to the ongoing realignment towards Asia while engaging in a parallel assessment of Russia’s interactions with other significant actors. The author offers discussion both on Russian responses and adaptations to the current power transition and the ways in which the economic initiatives promoted by Moscow in its project for a ‘Greater Eurasia’ reflect the entrepreneurial foreign policy strategy of the country.
This paper undertakes a comprehensive historical analysis of modern Japanese historiographical debates over the territorial delimitation between Russia and Japan, an issue that is extremely important for understanding the course and consequences of bilateral relations in the near and medium term. The author highlights and evaluates the main arguments in the Japanese historiography on the territorial demarcation issue and carries out a comparative analysis of Japanese historians' approaches and assessments of the documented legal aspects of the Soviet-Japanese border problem.
The subject of this book is the study of various national and cultural stereotypes that existed in Japan and Russia concerning each other in the historic past in in our days.
This chapter analyses the image of Japan in the late Soviet mentality and its role in the intelligentsia's world-view.
What explains the rise of populist movements across the West and their affinity towards Russia? UKIP’s Brexit victory, Trump’s triumph, and the successive elections and referendums in Europe were united by a repudiation of the liberal international order. These new political forces envision the struggle to reproduce and advance Western civilisation to be fought along a patriotism–cosmopolitanism or nationalism–globalism battlefield, in which Russia becomes a partner rather than an adversary. Armed with neomodernism and geoeconomics, Russia has inadvertently taken on a central role in the decay of Western civilisation.
This book explores the cooperation and competition between Western and Russian civilisation and the rise of anti-establishment political forces both contesting the international liberal order and expressing the desire for closer relations with Russia. Diesen proposes that Western civilisation has reached a critical juncture as modern society (gesellschaft) has overwhelmed and exhausted the traditional community (gemeinschaft) and shows the causes for the decay of Western civilisation and the subsequent impact on cooperation and conflict with Russia. The author also considers whether Russia’s international conservativism is authentic and can negate the West’s decadence, or if it is merely a shrewd strategy by a rival civilisation also in decay.
Control of space as one of the principles of geopolitical strife now became the principle of control over resources. Such a paradigm shift, for example, quite clearly declared itself at the turn of the XX-XXI centuries. In this context, the global scale of the problem is becoming a strategic oil reserve States providing their geoeconomic security.
We address the external effects on public sector efficiency measures acquired using Data Envelopment Analysis. We use the health care system in Russian regions in 2011 to evaluate modern approaches to accounting for external effects. We propose a promising method of correcting DEA efficiency measures. Despite the multiple advantages DEA offers, the usage of this approach carries with it a number of methodological difficulties. Accounting for multiple factors of efficiency calls for more complex methods, among which the most promising are DMU clustering and calculating local production possibility frontiers. Using regression models for estimate correction requires further study due to possible systematic errors during estimation. A mixture of data correction and DMU clustering together with multi-stage DEA seems most promising at the moment. Analyzing several stages of transforming society’s resources into social welfare will allow for picking out the weak points in a state agency’s work.