?
Формирование системы взаимодействия экспертов и власти в российской внешней политике в постсоветский период
This study investigates the evolution of interaction between expert communities and state authorities in Rus-sian foreign policy from the late Soviet period through the post-Soviet era. The aim is to reconstruct the historical trajec-tory of expert-authority relations, identify the critical junctures that shaped contemporary practices, and explain the mechanisms of path-dependency that have produced the current institutional landscape. The research draws on a mixed qualitative evidence base: 26 semi-structured interviews with practitioners and scholars working on different regional and thematic areas of international politics; memoirs and historical essays by former insiders; and relevant secondary literature on think-tanks and historical institutionalism. Empirically gathered material was analyzed using inductive content analysis and interpreted through the theoretical lens of historical institutionalism, with particular attention to concepts of critical junctures and path dependency. The article maps four successive phases that structure expert-state relations. First, the Soviet legacy established a model in which large state-created research institutes (IMEMO, Institute of the USA and Canada, Institute of Oriental Studies, MGIMO units) supplied knowledge to decision-makers but remained subordinate to political control. Second, the 1990s and 2000s introduced pluralization: new Anglo-Saxon-style independent think-tanks, diversified funding, and practices such as track-one-and-a-half dialogues and expert councils attached to ministries and parliament. Third, from the 2010s – accelerated by the 2012 foreign-agents legislation – the space for independent foreign-funded centres contracted and state-linked academic institutes regained prominence. Fourth, the 2022 rupture (the large-scale military operation and its political consequences) produced a rapid exodus or marginalization of many independent centres and a renewed consoli-dation of Soviet-era institutions as primary knowledge suppliers. The study argues that continuity – rather than linear modernization – characterizes Russian expert-state relations: institu-tional resilience and path dependency have produced a partial “re-Sovietization” of expert networks. Although formal mechanisms for expert engagement now exist, substantive pluralism has narrowed and state-aligned institutes dominate policy inputs. The author notes that should external funding and independent networks re-emerge, competition with entrenched Soviet-era centres would be complicated by their accumulated resources and legitimacy.