Edit] Relations with Asia

Russian and Indian naval warships during INDRA exercise. Russia enjoys strong bilateral relations with India.^[67]

Russia has strong relations with many Asian countries in the economic, diplomatic, military and trading fields. Among the most notable are the relations with:

• India (see Indo-Russian relations)
• Japan (see Japan-Russia relations)
• North Korea (see Russia-North Korea relations)
• South Korea (see Russia-South Korea relations)
• People's Republic of China (see China–Russia relations)
• Philippines

The strengthening of these relations is based on Russia's interests in regional defense. The military relations are sustained by joint exercises with several Asian countries including India, China, Japan and Philippines. China is the largest market for Russian arms followed by India.^[68]

REALITY AND THEORY
Alexei Bogaturov		Counter-Revolution of Values and International Security
The financial crisis has coincided with a new bout of international political instability. 2008 may prove to have been a turning point in the evolution of the international order. Even if not, the next US administration will be hard-pressed to review some of the value-laden policies of George W. Bush. The greatest challenge for President Obama will be to find a right balance between maintaining international peace and promoting democracy. If Obama decides to withdraw from the armed conflicts in which the United States became engaged under his predecessor, this will signify a break with the traditional pattern whereby Democratic administrations started wars that were ended later by their Republican successors. The challenge lying before Obama was highlighted by the August 2008 events in South Ossetia that became the first case of Russian-US quasi-military confrontation since 1991. Compared to the Cold War era, the current risk is magnified by the lack of commitment to peace, almost at any cost, on the part of both American and Russian policy makers. The August war has also elucidated the destabilizing role of small states playing on the contradictions seeking to profit from an open conflict between great powers. In addition, Washington’s decision to place relations with Russia and Georgia at the same level of strategic importance came as a surprise to Moscow. Theoretically, the policies of the Bush administration have demonstrated that a unipolar world can be more unstable than not only bipolar, but also multipolar structures. This happens if the only superpower seeks to enhance its preponderance and ability to recast the international order at its own discretion.
Valery Garbuzov		US Elections as a «Planned Crisis»
US presidential campaign has usually mobilized the American public, played a major role in informing the US political class of the popular grievances and shaping the agenda for the next four years. More than ever, the 2008 campaign served to correct the mistakes of the outgoing administration which enjoyed record low popularity by the end of its time in office. Among the candidates, the Republican John McCain best conformed to the typical image of a US president – a white male politician who has served in the US Senate since 1980s. While McCain had a reputation of an honest and principled person popular among the core groups of American voters, the highly unpopular legacy of the Bush Administration hobbled John McCain’s campaign and, coupled with the first blows of the financial crisis, ultimately led to the defeat of the Republicans. In his turn, the Democratic President-elect former Illinois Senator Barack Obama can be credited with overcoming the skepticism within his own party and convincing the broader public that he has real chances of winning the presidency. Obama’s victory carries a promise of improvement in US-Russian relations which has remained in crisis since the August 2008 conflict in South Ossetia. While the Bush Administration was fast to subject Moscow to unfair criticism, including the questioning of Russia’s further integration into the world economy, Obama has argued that the United States needs Russia to avoid the collapse of non-proliferation regime and maintain security in Eurasia. New US administration is likely to refrain from trying to isolate Russia or rally its European allies on the anti-Russian agenda.
Alexander Bulatov		The Chances and Prospects of Financial Recovery
The source of the current world financial and economic crisis lies in the excessive securitization of the financial sector. This phenomenon can be compared to the over-production in the industrial sector that served as a trigger of the earlier crises in the world economy. The scheme, whereby credit risks assumed by banks were relieved through the issuing of collaterized debt obligations, faltered in the US economy causing bankruptcies and liquidity shortage throughout the developed economies. The Americans pin their hopes on the Obama Administration which has pledged to spend up to 1 trillion dollars on demand stimulating measures. With all the negative implications for the US economy, the crisis is likely to reduce the US trade deficit and inflation. This will prop up the US dollar which is unlikely to depreciate seriously in comparison with other major currencies. Although Russia was not “responsible” for generating the crisis, it is suffering from its consequences – primarily because of poor economic and financial institutions and incoherent state policies. The trust in the Russian ruble was undermined which led to its 25-percent depreciation in 2008 only. Russia will run a trade deficit if the price of oil remains at the level of 40 dollars per barrel. Russian companies have up to 121 billion dollars to pay back to their foreign creditors in 2009. As a result of the anti-crisis policies adopted by the Russian Government, the public sector of the economy will expand while the Government’s ability to reduce unemployment and rein in inflation remain in question. Generally, the prospects of Russia’s recovery depend strongly on whether the American economy will overcome the crisis in 2009 or slip into a protracted recession, such as the one that happened in the Japanese economy in 1990–2002.
Tatiana Alekseeva		Violence and Democracy in US Foreign Policy
The controversy surrounding the notion of democracy is best understood if one views democracy as a political ideology intertwined with the ideologies of globalization and free market. Attempts to present democracy as a universal mode of governance can be met with several counterarguments. First, the values of democracy are rooted in a specific culture and cannot be regarded as truly universal. Second, encroaching on state sovereignty in the name of democracy may destabilize the international community. Third, democracy as an ideology sets inadequate goals for policy makers. Finally, trying to induce progress towards democracy from the outside may damage fragile political institutions of a transition country. Numerous analysts have also cast doubt on the view that the world-wide promotion of democracy is a core goal driving US foreign policy. These observers propose more realist explanations of US actions than the pursuit of democratic rule in other countries which is simply used as a smokescreen for pragmatic goals. Although there is no agreed definition of ideology among political scientists, democracy meets several of the widely acknowledged criteria of an ideology. Most notably, the notion of democracy contains “chains” of concepts linked in a particular way which does not lend itself to rational analysis. For example, globalization (itself an ideology) links democracy with free market, while in the 1980s the notions of freedom, free market, free trade and democracy were often employed in political discourse as interchangeable.
Marc Khrustalev		Trans-National Implications of Social and Political Instability
A country’s domestic political cohesion is affected by two sets of factors: internal and external. Conversely, internal destabilization in one country is likely to influence this country’s immediate environment as well as a broader community of states. In extreme cases, internal destabilization leads to the collapse of the whole country into several parts or to secession of one or more parts of the country. Otherwise, destabilization may lead to the change of ruling elites or political regime. Destabilization results from intense political struggle among social which that may occur at three levels: micro-political (narrow elites), macro-political (political parties or movements) and macro-social (organized large social groups). The defining role is played by the macro-social level. Developments that occur at this level are certain to spill over to the other two levels while micro- or macro-political struggle will not destabilize the whole system if the macro-social situation remains calm. Three types of macro-political divisions have historically triggered genocidal fight among macro-social groups. These are ethnic, confessional and class cleavages. With the emergence of world religions, ethnic divisions have given way to confessional divisions (with the exception of sub-Saharan African politics). As secularization was progressing in most of the developed world, class cleavages became more salient. In the early 21st century, however, radical religious movements seek to revive confessional divisions, primarily, in the Muslim countries.

Date: 2015-12-11; view: 695