The picture of the post-crisis world is shaped by the paradigm shifts about the sustainability of national development as a globally integrated co-development and as a necessary condition for national security and defense. Each state faces the steep task of developing new effective foreign economic policy, replacing the former export-oriented and protectionist import-substituting strategies. Such policy changes primarily concern the BRICS countries, including Russia and its place/role in expanding international trade in intermediate goods and services. Simultaneously, Russia and the BRICS must develop new mechanisms of economic cooperation between themselves in the form of global value chains (GVCs).
The article analyzes post-Soviet economic policy in the light of the previous periods of the Russian economic history. The authors find a striking similarity between the measures proposed by modern Russian economic liberals – as well as their consequences – and the actions taken by the Russian authorities during much earlier periods. They explain these similarities with the fact that “Western” terms can mean something very different in the context of a non-Western culture, phenomena and institutions with the same names in different types of societies can differ fundamentally and perform different functions. Furthermore, “Westernization” can be a purely superficial process intended more for show than for substance. By applying the methodology of substantivism which stresses the fundamental differences between economies based on gifts (reciprocity), redistribution, and exchange (market), they argue that Russia’s economy differs significantly from that of the countries of Western Europe and, in the typological sense, is closer to such European countries as Bulgaria, Albania, Romania, and Serbia. For this reason, similar measures of economic policy applied in Western Europe and Russia bring different results.
BRICS is a relatively young group but has already become one of the most influential international associations. How did this happen? It seems that fundamental changes in the world system in the late 20th-early 21st centuries led to the emergence of BRICS and to the rapid growth of its influence.
This book is based on the collection of articles centered around Russia and its policies. The articles are grouped under three parts. The first part contains articles on international relations, Russian foreign policy, and the situation in the world. The main themes they cover include Russian policy in Asia and the Eurasian integration — in which Moscow plays the most active role.
The second part looks at the theorization of Russia’s internal processes, issues concerning reforms to the communist system, its troubled transition from Communism, and analysis of the country’s current political regime. While elaborating on various reforms and transition from the communist system, the author has suggested certain alternatives concepts. Many of the articles analyze the shortcomings and inconsistencies of the modern Russian political system.
The third part is devoted to current issues in Russian politics, the democratization process, growing authoritarian tendencies, mass protests, and that evaluate the programs and policies of individual leaders. The book will be of interest to those specializing in Russian foreign and domestic policy as well as to all those interested in following the developments of this country, its role in the world, and the global situation in general.
The author argues that Russian–Chinese rapprochement is a fundamental feature of the current changing system of international relations. Apart from its own significance, it has become important because it stimulated and, in some cases, laid the foundation for many broader international processes: the creation of the multipolar world, the emergence of such international groups and organisations as BRICS and Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), the coordination between Eurasian Economic Union and the Chinese initiative of Silk Road Economic Belt and others. Recently, all these processes led to the idea of Greater Eurasia or Eurasian partnership.
This article examines the evolution of Russia’s policy towards BRICS from the time of its formation as a group of four countries in 2006 to the present. The authors analyse the main political objectives that guided Moscow in initiating the creation of this format and in developing it in subse- quent years. The article argues that, with Russia as a participant, the character of the organization has undergone major changes, due both to the changing inter- national situation and fundamental changes that the foreign policy of Russia itself has undergone since 2014.
The Trump administration’s confrontational approach has prompted a serious debate in China about the country’s economic and political course.
This article studies China’s approach to BRICS. It argues that China sees BRICS as a major asset in its effort to become a major world power and to reform the international system so that it becomes fairer and better serve its interests. However, in China’s view, these interests coincide with the interests of other major non-Western states which also suffer from this sense of unfairness, therefore this position is not self-seeking. This is a major problem which should be overcome with the help of other developing countries. But to change the situation, not a revolution but a gradual evolution based on negotiations and persuasion, is needed. This position makes China not a revisionist but rather a conservative power, within the existing international system.
The rise of China as well as its unprecedented economic success turned to be one of the most important factors in the world development in the late XX and early XXI centuries and transformed the country into the second most influential player on the international scene. This change caused a heated debate within the country about the prospects of Beijing’s foreign policy and economic course, with two major directions emerging as a result. The first group calls for a more active behaviour of China as a great power on the international arena, taking the example of the United States. It strives to achieve this goal through all available means, including military ones, to ensure China’s economic and political interests abroad, to put forward its own alternative to Western concepts of world development, and to create alternative trade and economic unions and zones. As a result, supporters of this line seek to move away from Deng Xiaoping’s foreign policy of modesty and restraint. The second group of realists believes that it is necessary to follow Deng’s principles, since the country is yet to secure the status of a major world power and can lose its current advantages, which come with a more modest status. They suggest that following the first path will provoke an unfavorable reaction of the international community. Chinese leadership has taken an intermediate position in this debate, holding back the most radical proposals of the activists and adopting some of the moderate ones. The debate, which has been vigorous since the beginning of the XXI century became particularly acute after the start of the trade war initiated by U.S. President Donald Trump. It revealed many of China’s weaknesses as well as its significant dependence on the United States. During the exacerbation, a number of experts criticised certain aspects of domestic and foreign policy of China’s current leadership, including the “belt and road initiative” initiative. Some claim that this initiative, along with a number of other major projects adopted by the Chinese government, for instance, the “Made in China 2025” plan, could have provoked Trump’s tough response, which may put China’s development at stake. Some major Beijing’s partners are also criticising certain forms of realisation of this initiative. The article examines the available sources shedding light on the public and non-public side of the debate, as well as its possible implications for China’s foreign and domestic policy and Sino-Russian relations.
Mass-media discourse is a “mirror” of sorts, which reflects general opinions and allows for understanding society’s mindset concerning migration issues. This article is devoted to analyzing the images created by Spanish mass-media regarding Latin American immigrants residing in Spain. Such a vision ultimately led to the emergence of an enduring perception of said immigrants by Spanish society from two main points of view – fear and pity. Columbians and Ecuadorians served as the prototypes for all Latin Americans who illegally entered Spain. The author reveals the reasons for the “divide” in Spanish mass-media’s perception of Columbia and Columbians, who became synonymous with danger, as well as Ecuador and Ecuadorian immigrants, who are primarily associated with Испанские СМИ о латиноамериканских мигрантах: между страхом и жалостью 110 № 4, Том 10, 2019 compassion and pity. This article examines the main stages of Latin American migration to Spain at the end of the 20th century and at the beginning of the 21st century, which were primarily comprised in succession by immigrants from Columbia, Argentina, Venezuela and Cuba. The author characterizes the most numerous of Spain’s Latin American Diasporas. It is revealed that immigration is a collectively constructed social phenomenon. In turn the host society attributes certain characteristics to visitors (“others”) which they in fact do not possess. Such artificially assigned qualities are the result of a so-called “symbolic structure”, attributed to each “imaginary migrant”. Latin American migration to Spain is a result of a multitude of factors lying on various levels. However, it is very uncommon for the news to carefully examine the regional and global aspects of this process. This article reveals the specific image of Latin American migrants which developed in Spain towards the beginning of the 21st century. The author attempts to define the hidden ideology supporting the vast majority of those negative Latin American migrant stereotypes broadcast by national mass-media.
Due to commercial difficulties happened in the beginning of the 21st century China was not particularly interested in rapprochement with Mexico, preferring other Latin American countries. For the last years Mexican-Chinese relations are developping. Donald Trump's presidency, characterized by the absence of a long-term Latin American policy, as well as the gradual curtailment of Washington's presence in the region, led to the intensification of cooperation between Beijing and Mexico City. This provides China with opportunity to bridge the gap appeared after deterioration of U.S.-Mexico relations, without looking back at past failures.
The phrase “the best foreign policy is domestic policy” became some kind of mantra for the new administration, headed by the new president Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (2018 - present), at the beginning of his mandate remaining focused solely on internal problems, and forgetting about representing Mexico’s interests in the world. And, despite the fact that foreign policy issues remained far behind, compared with domestic problems, the new administration has at long last taken a number of steps in the field of international relations and foreign policy, which did not go unnoticed by the wide public. The article is devoted to changes in the foreign policy priorities of Mexico, occurring after the new president came to power in the country. In this context, relations between this Latin American country and the United States, China, Latin America are considered. It is shown how, within the framework of these main directions of foreign policy, the new Mexican administration offers new ways of solving strategic issues. The article presents an analysis of Mexican-Venezuelan relations at the beginning of the XXI century. The position of the mediator, taken by Mexico in relation to the Venezuelan crisis, confirmed the traditional commitment of this country to the principles of the Estrada Doctrine. Author cites the main factors influencing today on the formation of Mexico’s foreign policy.
The article provides a historical analysis of the stages of building by the US media a negative image of Mexico and Mexicans in the minds of Americans.
After the end of the Cold War, the USA was probably in the most favorable geopolitical
conditions in which a great power has ever found itself during the whole history of the world. The Eurasian
continental massif – the “world island”, as it was called by Halford Mackinder – turned out to be
dissected into “flanks” and “center”, where the leading powers focused on their macro-regions problems
and less interested in the fate of their neighbors. During two decades, the Russian leadership has been
looking for a foothold on one of these flanks – the European one, formulating its policy through the prism
of the concept of building a “Greater Europe” - a territory that includes all European and EAEU member
countries. Economically, Greater Europe was supposed to create a common market from Lisbon to
Vladivostok, where there are no barriers to business and there are common rules that are clear to everyone.
However, in recent years, the nature of Russian politics has undergone fundamental changes – Russia
began to demonstrate its desire to act as a “collector” of the single geopolitical space of the Eurasian
continent. In this article, the authors analyze the structural prerequisites that caused the gradual departure of
Russia's foreign policy from the concept of building a Greater Europe in favor of the formation of a new
geopolitical and geo-economic structure – Greater Eurasia. This conceptual framework of geopolitical,
geo-economic and geostrategic rapprochement of states is aimed at turning Eurasia into the center of
world economy and politics. In their study, the authors give a brief overview of foreign and domestic
works on the geo-economic consolidation of Greater Eurasia.
Greater Eurasia is a joint project of its member states, ready to go towards a common goal. One of
the projects, to which this article is devoted, is the analysis of Russian-Chinese rapprochement, whose actions
in the SCO were previously constrained by the desire to restrain each other's influence, as well as
the reaction to it from the United States.
The article presents a historical overview of the main stages of creating of United States — Mexico border walls. The author examines the results that those measures have achieved, and the tactics of using the idea of the wall construction as the base for the D.Trump’s election campaign.