Abstract
This chapter will ask what we have learned about how, and to what extent, the 15 former Soviet republics, after the sudden collapse of the USSR, broke from the imperial nexus and the Soviet legacy in the field of foreign policy. How did they succeed in creating functioning and professional ministries of foreign affairs and diplomatic services, and begin to define their own national interests and concepts of foreign policy? What orientations and divisions did they have, and how successful were they in achieving them in the first ten years, from 1991 to 2001? How did their policies change, as a result of political struggles at home and developments in the international environment?1
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Mark Webber, The International Politics of Russia and the Successor States, Manchester and New York, 1996.
3. Adeed Dawisha and Karen Dawisha (eds), The Making of Foreign Policy in Russia and the New States of Eurasia, Armonk, NY and London, 1995.
4. Taras Kuzio, ‘Geopolitical pluralism in the CIS: The emergence of GUUAM’, European Security, 9(2), 2000, pp. 81–114, and idem, ‘Promoting geopolitical pluralism in the CIS: GUUAM and Western foreign policy’, Problems of Post-Communism, 47(3), 2000, pp. 25–35.
5. Samuel P. Huntington, ‘The clash of civilizations’, Foreign Affairs, 72(3), 1993, pp. 22–49.
6. Hendrik Spruyt, ‘The prospects for neo-imperial and nonimperial outcomes in the former Soviet space’, in Karen Dawisha and Bruce Parrott (eds), The End of Empire: The Transformation of the USSR in Comparative Perspective, Armonk, NY and London, 1997, pp. 315–37 (p. 323).
Nicholas V. Riasanovsky, ‘The emergence of eurasianism’, California Slavic Studies, 4, 1967, pp. 39–72.
9. Andrei Kozyrev, Preobrazhenie, Moscow, 1995, pp. 277–9.
10. Ivan G. Tiouline, ‘Russia. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs: Through decline towards renewal’, in Brian Hocking (ed.) Foreign Ministries: Change and Adaptation, Basingstoke, 1999, pp. 170–87 (p. 171).
12. A. V. Torkunov et al., Vneshniaia politika Rossiiskoi Federatsii 1992–1999, Moscow, 1999, p. 19.
Dov Lynch, Russian Peacekeeping Strategies in the CIS: The Cases of Moldova, Georgia and Tajikistan, Basingstoke, 2000, pp. 111–18.
17. Lena Jonson, The Tajik War: A Challenge to Russian Policy, London, 1998, pp. 8–9.
19. Roy Allison, ‘Military factors in foreign policy’, in Neil Malcolm, Alex Pravda, Roy Allison and Margot Light, Internal Factors in Russian Foreign Policy, Oxford, 1996, pp. 230–85 (p. 264).
20. Michael Anderson, ‘Russia and the former Yugoslavia’, in Mark Webber (ed.) Russia and Europe: Conflict or Cooperation?, Basingstoke and New York, 2000, pp. 179–209 (pp. 188–91).
Andrei Kozyrev, ‘Russia and NATO: A partnership for a united and peaceful Europe’, NATO Review, 42(4), 1994, pp. 3–6.
‘Russia and the CIS: Does the West’s position need adjustment?’, Rossiiskaiagazeta, 22 September 1994, in Current Digest of the Post-Soviet Press, 56(38), 1994, pp. 1–5.
24. Mark Webber, CIS Integration Trends: Russia and the Former Soviet South, London, 1997, pp. 14–16.
25. Roy Allison, ‘The Chechenia conflict: Military and security policy implications’, in Roy Allison and Christoph Bluth (eds), Security Dilemmas in Russia and Eurasia, London and Washington, DC, 1998, pp. 241–80 (pp. 264–67).
26. Michael Binyon, ‘Kozyrev threatens force to protect ethnic Russians’, The Times, 19 April 1995.
27. Richard Sakwa and Mark Webber, ‘The Commonwealth of Independent States, 1991–1998: Stagnation and survival’, Europe–Asia Studies, 51(3), 1999, pp. 379–415; Martha Brill Olcott, Anders Aslund and Sherman W. Garnett, Getting it Wrong: Regional Cooperation and the Commonwealth of Independent States, Washington, DC, 1999, esp. pp. 1–36.
28. NATO Review, Summit edition, 47(2), 1999.
29. For a liberal Russian view of Russia’s international situation, see Vladimir Baranovsky, ‘Russia: A part of Europe or apart from Europe?’, International Affairs (London), 76(3), 2000, pp. 443–58.
‘Kontseptsiia vneshnei politiki Rossiiskoi Federatsii’, Nezavisimaia gazeta, 11 July 2000.
31. Mette Skak, From Empire to Anarchy: Postcommunist Foreign Policy and International Relations, London, 1996, pp. 192–222.
32. Atis Lejins, ‘Joining the EU and NATO’, in Atis Lejins (ed.), Baltic Security Prospects at the Turn of the 21st Century, Helsinki, 1999, pp. 9–50.
33. Vladimir Mikhailov and Konstantin Drachevskii, ‘Po puti vzaimodeistviia i sotrudnichestva’, Nezavisimaia gazeta, 4 November 2000.
Clelia Rontoyanni, ‘Building the wider Europe: Ambitions and constraints in Russia’s policies towards Belarus and Ukraine’, Glasgow Papers, No. 3, 2000, pp. 4–9.
35. Anatoly Rozanov, ‘Belarus: Foreign policy priorities’, in Sherman W. Garnett and Robert Legvold (eds), Belarus at the Crossroads, Washington DC, 1999, p. 25.
36. Alice Lagnado, ‘Belarussian election landslide “Undemocratic” ‘, The Times, 11 September 2001.
37. Viacheslav Chornovil, quoted in Andrew Wilson, Ukrainian Nationalism in the 1990s: A Minority Faith, Cambridge and New York, 1997, p. 176.
38. James Sherr, ‘Russia–Ukraine rapprochement?: The Black Sea fleet accords’, Survival, 39(3), 1997, pp. 33–50 (p. 43).
39. James Sherr, ‘The dismissal of Borys Tarasyuk’, Conflict Studies Research Centre Occasional Brief, 79, 6 October 2000.
Paul D’Anieri, Robert Kravchuk and Taras Kuzio, Politics and Society in Ukraine, Boulder, CO and Oxford, 1999, p. 227.
41. Tat’iana Silina, ‘O chem sheptalis’ prezidenty?’, Zerkalo nedeli, 17 February 2001.
42. Michael W. Miller, ‘Moldova: A state nation. Identity under postcommunism’, Slovo, 7(1), 1994, pp. 56–71 (p. 70).
43. Jonathan Aves, Georgia: From Chaos to Stability?, London, 1993, pp. 26–37.
44. On Karabakh, see Edmund Herzig, The New Caucasus: Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, London, 1999, pp. 65–73.
45. Nodar Broladze, ‘Gruziia vozvrashchaetsia v sferu vliianiia Rossii?’, Nezavisimaia gazeta, 27 September 2001.
R. Freitag Wirminghaus, ‘Turkmenistan’s place in Central Asia and the world’, in Mehdi Mozaffari (ed.), Security Politics in the Commonwealth of Independent States: The Southern Belt, Basingstoke and New York, 1997, pp. 66–84.
47. John Anderson, The International Politics of Central Asia, Manchester, 1997, p. 200.
48. Annette Bohr, Uzbekistan: Politics and Foreign Policy, London, 1998, pp. 49–56.
Rafis Abazov, The Formation of Post-Soviet International Politics in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, Seattle, WA 1999, pp. 42–9.
50. Lena Jonson, ‘Russia and Central Asia’, in Roy Allison and Lena Jonson (eds), Central Asian Security: The New International Context, London and Washington, DC, 2001, pp. 95–126 (p. 100).
Roy Allison, ‘Structures and frameworks for security policy cooperation in Central Asia’, in ibid., pp. 219–46 (pp. 220–3).
Allen C. Lynch, ‘The realism of Russia’s foreign policy’, Europe–Asia Studies, 53(1), 2001, pp. 7–31.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2004 Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Duncan, P.J.S. (2004). Westernism, Eurasianism and Pragmatism: The Foreign Policies of the Post-Soviet States, 1991–2001. In: Slater, W., Wilson, A. (eds) The Legacy of the Soviet Union. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230524408_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230524408_12
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-51377-2
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-52440-8
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)