While the scope of the paper is to assess the actions undertaken by the European Union towards the FSU-CIS (the former Soviet Union, Commonwealth of Independent States) which was manifested through the Eastern Partnership Initiative in the years 2008–2014, the focus will be centred on theoretical concepts and their ‘explanatory power’ rather than actions undertaken by European or Russian decision makers. Taking that into the account, this essay will critically assess the explanatory power of the neorealist school of thought which although overtly criticized, still remains a viable tool in explaining the processes occurring in international relations.

According to he author of this article, Prof. Miao Huashou – from the Euro-Asian Social Development Research Institute and from the Development Research Center of the PRCh State Council, Russian diplomacy may boast of many great successes in 2006. Russia once again creates its image of a great empire by demonstrating its geopolitical and economic inuences. €e country underlines this way its position of an empire equal to the USA. It will continue to strengthen its inuences in the Commonwealth of Independent States and undertake all the eorts aiming to development of strategic partnership with the EU on equal rules. It will also develop its contacts with the USA, as well as it will continue political dialogue and economic cooperation with other, great world powers.

The annexation of Crimea is not an ordinary event in contemporary international relations. Since WWII, there has been no precedent in Europe when one state under dubious premises has forcefully annexed a part of another state. This article scrutinizes the Crimean case in the context of the ongoing Ukrainian crisis and uncovers the rationale behind Russia’s aggressive policies in the Black Sea Region. To accomplish this task, several steps have been undertaken. Primarily, the recent speeches of Russian officials and Kremlin-originated documents have been analyzed. Secondly, the tactics favored by the Kremlin to achieve its geopolitical goals have been explained and assessed (through applying frameworks of meta-geography and soft power security). Thirdly, the future prospects for Crimea with its gradual transformation in the counter- NATO fortress have been outlined.

China as a Strategic Economic Partner in the Concepts of Russian Foreign Policy in the 2020s

The article presents an idea of the possible Russian - Chinese strategic economic partnership at the beginning of the 21st century. The author indicates the main factors influencing Russian Federation foreign policy towards China from the perspective of a neoclassical realism.The author stands that according to J. Rosenau, the main factors determining the Russian foreign policy are idiosyncratic and role. Then he analyses the Russian documents of foreign policy, economic data and geopolitical ideas. On that ground, he makes a simple analyse using the neoclassical realism model, that’s integrates Foreign Policy Analyse and International Relations Theory, joining independent and intervening variables, to support the article’s hypotheses. That hypotheses say that, firstly, The Peoples Republic of China (PRC) plays a role of diversification of Russia’s international economic ties; and secondly, The PRC status as a Russia’s strategic partner is at issue, despite the official declarations of both sides.

Russian economic nationalism and the vectors of Russian foreign policy

In this article, the author wants to test the impact of economic nationalism on the change in Russia’s foreign policy. The author will refer to neoclassical realism, which shows how to combine the issues of power distribution in international relations with the influence of the domestic level of the state on the process of creation of the foreign policy. In terms of neoclassical realism, economic nationalism is a variable that shapes the perception of the economic challenges facing Russia. The author also points out that economic nationalism is also related to the protectionist policy of the Russian Federation. Thus, it influences the shaping of processes within and outside the country. The author recognizes that in the process of creating the Russian foreign policy decisions, economic nationalism should be linked to other factors, especially security issues and Russia’s general strategic culture, in order to obtain the final set of premises that will determine Russia’s shifts in foreign policy. The tensions related to the role of the EU and NATO in the countries of Eastern Europe clearly influenced the level of cooperation between Russia and the West. Nevertheless, economic issues in this regard were also extremely important. Russia’s power position was based on the economic potential.

This article claims that the legacy of European imperialism and colonialism in Africa can be conceptually compared to the legacy of Russian and Soviet imperialism and colonialism in the former USSR republics and the nations of Central and Easter Europe that were under Soviet dominations. Despite the obvious fact that the historical conditions and paths of African nations that were colonized, repressed and ruled by the European empires differ significantly from the experience of the nations of Eastern Europe and Central Asia, that were conquered and colonized by the Russian Empire and later on were subjects to the Soviet rule, it is suggested in this article, that the conceptual lessons drawn from the vast literature dedicated to the studies of the aftermath of colonialism in Africa can enrich the scholarly efforts aimed at understanding the post-soviet spaces and different processes in it. What is meant by “conceptual lessons” is methodological opportunity for a different perspective or even a different lens through which the legacy of the Soviet rule and the current Russian neo-imperial foreign politics can be better understood. Much is written about the European imperialism and its colonial policies, however there is still some reluctance in applying the methodological framework of postcolonial studies to the former Soviet Union and present day Russia. Scholars all over the world studied the colonial legacies that African nations struggled to overcome and there are topics of particular relevance to the study of the post-soviet space: the processes of post-colonial nation building, the roles of new national elites, the ideological choices in foreign policies of newly independent nations, the aftermath of the policies of assimilation, the imperial “ideologies of superiority”, the economic consequences of colonialism, the role of churches and religious organizations in supporting colonial suppression – as conceptual topics, all of them can be studied critically, also in a comparative perspective, to have a much better understanding of the former soviet and current Russian foreign politics and policies.

Role theory and Russia’s attempts to integrate the post-Soviet space: from internal to international duties

With the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Moscow’s foreign policy towards the post-Soviet space has become an even greater area of concern. In order to better understand Russia’s behaviour in the post-Soviet space, it is worth analysing what led to Moscow’s renewed interest in this area. There are numerous accounts explaining Russia’s policies towards its neighbourhood, but they often focus on material factors or Russian imperial complexes. To address the existing gap and examine changes in Moscow’s attitude towards the region, this paper will use role theory and analyse shifts in Russia’s national role conceptions. It argues that the combination of important external and internal factors led to changes in perception of Russia’s international duties and responsibilities between Putin’s rise to power and his return to the presidency in 2012. Consequently, these changes resulted in different understanding of Russia’s role in the post-Soviet space, which had implications for Russia’s increasingly aggressive actions in the region afterwards.