Большая Евразия в условиях меняющейся военно-политической реальности
This chapter focuses on the important area of integration of the Greater Eurasia project: defense and security in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The chapter examines in detail the defense and security dimension of Greater Eurasia through the example of military cooperation between China and Russia as the main driver of Greater Eurasia. It is concluded that by 2016, an "average" level of military interaction had been achieved in Russian-Chinese relations, which opens up opportunities for further integration. However, given that relations between the two great powers are built on a solid foundation of national interests and sovereign equality, further military integration of Russia and China is being questioned. The pandemic, in the context of growing contradictions with official Washington, has intensified the more self-confident and assertive behavior of official Beijing in the foreign arena.
Russia’s policy towards Northeast Asia cannot be understood independently of its general Asian strategy, primarily its pivot to Asia, which has practically become an official policy after 2014. We are witnessing two contradictory tendencies in Washington and Seoul. The Trump administration seeks to assume a tougher stance on North Korea. At the same time, South Korea’s new government is likely to be more moderate towards Pyongyang. At the same time Russian experts expressed considerable hope.
In the coming decades in the process of globalization the position of the USA and Europe will weaken, while the role of developing countries will increase. The role of the two largest emerging economies – China and India – will be of special significance. What future will these fast-growing giants face? The demographers agree that pretty soon India will lead the world in population and thus surpass China, while China will encounter serious ageing population problems. But economic and political scenarios of the future are quite different: from resounding success and world leadership to collapse caused by demographic and socio-political troubles. Which of them is more feasible? In the present article I analyze the Chinese and Indian development models separately and comparatively and make a forecast of their perspectives in the twenty-first century. Such an analysis could be helpful for understanding Russia's ways of development.
This two-part overview of contemporary Russian anthropology focuses in detail on the work of several scholars and situates it in the changing landscape of Russian academia. The main issue I address is debates about an academic identity of Russian anthropology as ‘historical science’. Given that in Western anthropology, history has become one of the leading modes of anthropological analysis and that the turn to history marked a radical repositioning of anthropology’s very subject, it is important to explore how such configurations of history and anthropology work in other anthropological traditions and what the reasons are for turning to history or, conversely, avoiding it, for specific national, continental and transnational anthropological schools. In this article, I explore these questions by focusing on anthropology in Russia with an aim of reassembling the relationship between anthropology and history from the point of view of the anthropology of time. I ask what temporal frameworks underscore the relationship between anthropology and history. I explore these understandings ethnographically, that is, through ethnographic interviews with Russian scholars in addition to close readings of their works.
The recent crisis in Ukraine cast a spotlight on those countries located between Russia and the EU, a region that had long existed beneath the radar of international politics. Indeed, even its name remains indeterminate: the term 'post-Soviet' is too encompassing (it could also designate Estonia or Tajikistan) while the notion of 'Eastern Europe' has long lost any geographical anchor. Instead, this space is often named after regional powers’ attempts to shape it: as the EU’s 'Eastern Neighbourhood' or as Russia’s 'Near Abroad'. The new region-building endeavour pursued by Russia through Eurasian integration frameworks is a crucial development in this regard.
On the 29 of May 2014, Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan signed the Treaty establishing the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU), which extends the provisions of the existing Eurasian Customs Union (ECU) and comes into being in 2015. This integration regime has been lauded by Russian President Vladimir Putin as a new, better version of the European Union, and castigated by US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton as a new form of the Soviet Union. This report shows that it is neither. The EEU is a modern and far-reaching attempt at economic integration, but one that is weakened by internal and conceptual contradictions. What was designed as a geo-economic framework is increasingly becoming a geopolitical issue. In attempting to counter the influence of the EU’s alternative integration regime (the Eastern Partnership), Russia has shifted its diplomacy from persuasion to coercion, and Moscow is increasingly resorting to using the EEU as a foreign policy tool. The countries of the entredeux – literally, something placed between two things – are being forced to face to a geopolitical choice they had been trying to avoid, or at least to defuse. Divisive domestic politics, separatism, structural dependencies and the economic and political calculations of internal actors are key factors mediating and complicating their choice. This report focuses on these issues that are too often overlooked in the debate on Russia-EU regional competition.
The book is dedicated to the 100th anniversary of Russian parliamentarism. The analysis of historical experience and actual problems of development of parliamentarism in Russia, Germany and a number of other European countries is presented. The authors are leading Russian and foreign experts from a number of research centers in Russia and Europe. Materials on the analysis of the development of parliamentarism in Germany and other European countries are based on the results of the European project "Parliamentary representation in Europe: recruiting and the career of legislators in 1848-2005", implemented during the last decade.
The book is addressed to a wide range of readers - scientists, politicians, public servants, teachers and students, everyone who is interested in the history and modern experience of Russian and European parliamentarism.