تحلیل مقایسه‌ای الگوی رقابت ایالات ‌متحد و فدراسیون روسیه در اوراسیای مرکزی (2020-2000)

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشیار علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه اصفهان

2 دانشیار روابط بین‌الملل، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد خوراسگان

3 دانشجوی دکتری روابط بین‌الملل، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد خوراسگان

چکیده

با توجه به تغییر و تحول‌هایی که در سال‌ها و دهه‌های اخیر در هرم قدرت جهانی پدید آمده است، فرهنگ راهبردی مؤلفۀ بنیادینِ مهمی است که در مناظرۀ چهارم روابط بین‌الملل با تأثیرگذاری بر نوع نگرش دولت‌مردان کشورهای مؤثر در عرصۀ سیاست بین‌الملل، همپای مؤلفه‌های مادی قدرت در شکل‌دهی به کُنش راهبردی کشورها در عرصۀ سیاست و روابط بین‌الملل پیش رفته است. با توجه به این انگارۀ بنیادین که فرهنگ راهبردی می‌تواند نوع کنشگری ایالات ‌متحد و فدراسیون روسیه در حوزۀ راهبردی اوراسیای مرکزی در فضای پساشوروی به‌عنوان یکی از مهم‌ترین مناطق ژئوپلیتیک و ژئواستراتژیک جهان را تجزیه‌ و تحلیل کند، با رویکردی توصیفی ـ تحلیلی و با بهره‌گیری از مفروض‌های نظری فرهنگ راهبردی در پی پاسخ به این پرسش هستیم: در دو دهۀ اخیر فرهنگ راهبردی و مؤلفه‌هایِ برخاسته از آن چه تأثیرهایی بر اقدام‌های فدراسیون روسیه و ایالات ‌متحد در حوزۀ اوراسیای مرکزی برجای نهاده است؟ در پاسخ این فرضیه مطرح می‌شود که فرهنگ راهبردی به‌مثابۀ عامل و پیشرانِ مؤثر بر مجموعۀ اقدام‌های فدراسیون روسیه در فضای پساشوروی شامل مؤلفه‌هایی مانند توسعه‌طلبی راهبردی، گسترش هویت اسلاو ـ ارتودکس و گفتمان ملی‌گرایی روسی و تثبیت قدرت ملی در محیط ژئوپلیتیک است. در مقابل، ایالات‌ متحد برای ترویج فرهنگ لیبرال ـ دموکراسی، تثبیت موقعیت ابرقدرتی و ایجاد موازنه‌گرایی منطقه‌ای، فرهنگ راهبردیِ خاصی را در این حوزۀ قدرت‌آفرین و چالش‌زا برای خود ترسیم کرده است.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Comparative Analysis of the Competition Model of the United States and the Russian Federation in Central Eurasia (2000-2020)

نویسندگان [English]

  • Seyed Javad Emamjomezade 1
  • Mahnaz Goodarzi 2
  • Ghasem Rahimi Chosli 3
1 Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Isfahan
2 Associate Professor of International Relations, Islamic Azad University, Khorasgan Branch
3 Ph.D. Student of International Relations, Islamic Azad University, Khorasgan Branch
چکیده [English]

The strategic area of Central Eurasia is one of the most important regions in the post-Soviet space, accepting the rivalry between the Russian Federation and the United States, and has introduced itself as a mirror of international politics. Regarding the strategic culture of Moscow’s foreign policy, it can be said that since the Russian Federation does not want to fully maintain the basic rules of the international system, nor does it seek to make extensive changes to the rules of this order, hence the idea of “reformist” activism Comes to mind. Reform activists are actors who pursue different motives and methods than other actors in international politics. The Russian Federation, as a reformist power, has on its agenda the two principles of peaceful coexistence and the creation of a multipolar world in its new foreign policy. In this context, the Russian Federation, on the one hand, does not reject any change in the status quo and intervention abroad (Central Asia, South Caucasus, Black Sea, and Baltic), and on the other, is dissatisfied with the current state of the international system and wants a complete transformation. It is not in the rules that govern it either.
As for the United States’ movements in the geographical territory of Central Eurasia, it can be said that Washington generally seeks to sign bilateral and multilateral military agreements with Georgia, Ukraine, Romania, and the Czech Republic, following political intervention and attempts to bring the republics of the region under its security umbrella. In this regard, Poland is trying to move forward and most importantly, is building several anti-missile defense systems in the frame of NATO expansion. Although the White House has claimed that the purpose of the missile defense shield is to protect the United States and NATO members from North Korea’s threats and the Islamic Republic of Iran’s ballistic missiles, nevertheless the Kremlin sees it as a serious threat to its national security. Moscow is very serious and determined in its position and constantly declares that the justification of the United States for the establishment of a missile defense shield is a mere excuse for the blockade of the Russian Federation. The Russian Federation considers the United States moves in this regard an attempt to achieve “strategic superiority” and to play with the result of a zero-sum game, which is targeted at the same time as weakening strategic depth, geopolitical contraction, and Moscow’s exclusion from European arrangements. From the above-mentioned points, it can be concluded that the main issues affecting the political-security relations between the Russian Federation and the United States are mutual threats and suspicions, successive and endless cycles of de-escalation, and involvement of various internal and external variables in the current process between the two countries which shows the complexity and multi-layered nature of this conflict.
The Main Question is: what impact has the strategic culture and its components had on the actions of the Russian Federation and the United States in the Central Eurasian region in the last two decades?
The Hypothesis posed by the above-mentioned question is that strategic culture serves as a driving force behind Moscow’s post-Soviet actions, including components such as strategic expansionism, the spread of Orthodox identity and the Russian nationalist discourse, and the consolidation of national power in the environment. In contrast, the United States has developed a special strategic culture to promote a culture of liberal democracy, establish a superpower position and create regional balance.
The method used in this research is explanatory-prescriptive and the type of the research is fundamental. The nature of this writing is also qualitative. The data collection has been through the library method, the use of internet resources, articles, and documents.
Analyzing the strategic behaviors of political units through the components of strategic culture has advantages the most important of which is the possibility of understanding the actions of the actor in question and predicting the behaviors arising from it. The theory makes it possible for researchers to understand how countries view strategic issues and what reactions they emit in a variety of situations, even in emergencies. Regarding strategic culture, it should be noted that this component is the product of the historical experience of countries. On the other hand, because experiences are different among governments, different actors have different strategic cultures. In this way, it can be said that the strategic culture acts as a magnifying glass through which the type of relationship between the international goals, motives, and actions of the Russian Federation and the United States can be evaluated and examined in the management of international crises.
As mentioned at the beginning of the research, the most important components of the Russian Federation’s strategic culture include geopolitical features and a development view, the idea of great power and regional hegemony, dominant authoritarianism, Russian nationalist discourse, and Slavic-Orthodox identity, and the notion of threat. They have left a deep impression on the strategic decision-making and foreign policy of the Russian Federation. In other words, it can be said that Moscow, in articulating its foreign policy discourse and strategic decision-making, has relied on the above-mentioned components. Accordingly, the Russian Federation in the field of foreign policy has strategies such as selective interaction, soft balance and an emphasis on multilateralism, the great normative modern strategy, eastward policy, confrontation with fundamentalism and terrorism, and Russian-oriented political and security institutionalism in the region which has made the headline of its work. Regarding the strategic culture of the United States, it must be acknowledged that to achieve the goals that have been formed under the influence of its strategic culture, it seeks hegemony and consolidation of its power in the world. In this regard, the United States has a mission to lead the world and is committed to global governance. In the meantime, if the country resorts to military force, it will inevitably use it. As a result, it can be said that the components that shape the strategic culture of the United States are aggressive, which is effective in pursuing its aggressive foreign policy in the strategic context of Central Eurasia.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Central Eurasia
  • Foreign Policy
  • Russian Federation
  • strategic culture
  • the United States
Adami, Ali and Hassan Ainehvand (2018), “How Russia and China Confronted the United States in Eurasia”, Scientific Quarterly of Central Asian and Caucasus Studies, Vol. 24, No. 102, pp. 1-33 [in Persian].
Atai, F. and Mehdi Hedayati Shahidani (2013), “The Developing Process of Soft Power in Russia’s Foreign Affairs”, Central Asia and the Caucasus Studies, No. 19, pp. 101-125 [in Persian].
Balamir, Bezen (2007), “Does “Strategic Culture” Matter? Old Europe, New Europe and the Transatlantic Security”, Perceptions: Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 12, No. 15, pp. 71-90.
Bordachev, Timofei V. and Andei S. Skriba (2016), “Russia’s Eurasian Integration Policies”, Available at: http://www.lse.ac.uk/IDEAS/ publications/reports/pdf/SR019/SR019- Bordachev-Skriba.pdf, (Accessed on: 17/1/2016).
Chernov, Fard (2009), Theory and Sub-Theory in International Relations, Translated by Alireza Tayeb, Tehran: Ney [in Persian].
Chisholm, Ryan (2018), “Species – Area Relationships and Biodiversity Loss in Fragmented Landscapes”, Ecology Letters, Vol. 21, No. 7, pp. 804-816.
Cook-Huffman, Celia (2009), “The Role of Identity in Conflict”, in: Handbook of Conflict Analysis and Resolution, pp. 19-31 (doi: 10.4324/9780203893166-13).
Cornell, Svante (2004), “NATO’s Role in South Caucasus Regional Security”, Turkish Policy Quarterly, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 130-154.
De Groot, Mikaela and Others (2008), Deconstructing Iranian Speech: a Strategic Culture Analysis, Workshop in Public Affairs, International Issues Public Affairs.
De Maio, Giovanna (2016), Russia’s View of Ukraine after the Crisis, Working Papers, Istituto Affari Internazionali.
Deneen, Christopher Charles (2012), “Humor in the Workplace: a Regulation and Coping Mechanism Socialization”, Discourse and Communication, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 375-384.
Engstrom, Arne (2014), “RC is a Theory of Learning, not teaching”, International Research, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 360-371.
Ermarth, Fritz W. (2006), “Russia’s Strategic Culture: Past, Present and in Transition?”, Available at: https://fas.org/irp/agency/dod/dtra/russia.pdf, (Accessed on: 10/8/2018).
Falahat Pisheh, Heshmatollah and Hamid Darj (2019), “Russia’s Efforts to Neutralize the Effects of the US Missile Defense Shield in Eastern Europe”, Central Eurasia Studies, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 435-457 [in Persian].
Farrell, Theo (2005), Strategic Culture and American Empire, SAIS Review.
Feng, Huiyum (2007), Chinese Strategic Culture and Foreign Policy, Decision – Making: Confucianism Leadership and War, New York.
Gohari Moghaddam, Abuzar (2009), “A Review of the Paradigm Shift in American Foreign Policy under Bush”, Strategy Quarterly, No. 16, pp. 258-280 [in Persian].
Goodarzi, Soheil, Ahmad Soltaninejad, Mustafa Zahrani and Mohsen Islami (2017), “Study of the Relationship between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America in the Light of Strategic Culture”, International Relations Studies, Vol. 10, No. 39, pp. 119-146 [in Persian].
Gray, Colins S. (2006), “Out of the Wilderness: Prime Time for Strategic Culture”, Available at: https://fas.org/irp/agency/dod/dtra/stratcult-out.pdf, (Accessed on: 10/8/2018).
Haesebrouck, Tim (2016), “Explaining the Member States” Varying Military Engagements: the Potential of a Strategic Culture Perspective”, JCER, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 361-379.
Haji Yousefi, Amir Mohammad and Abbas Zolfaghari (2017), “Russia’s Strategic Culture and Participation in Arms Processes in West Asia”, Security Horizons, Vol. 10, No. 36, pp. 121-152 [in Persian].
Harsij, Hossein and Maryam Seyedi (2007), “The Role of Civil Power in Foreign Policy”, Public Law Research Quarterly, Vol. 9, No. 22, pp. 173-202 [in Persian].
Hedayati Shahidani, Mehdi (2019), “Understanding Intelligent Power in Russian Foreign Policy Trends (2014-2019)”, Central Asia and the Caucasus Studies, Vol. 25, No. 107, pp. 159-158 [in Persian].
Hosseini, Ali and Hassan Aynehvand (2016), “Analysis of the Impact of Neo-Eurasianism on Russia’s Foreign Policy in the Ukraine Crisis 2014”, Central Asia and the Caucasus Studies, Vol. 21, No. 92, pp. 131-165 [in Persian].
Hosseini, Seyedeh Motahareh, Sarem Shiravand and Fereshteh Maboudinejad (2014), “Discourse Analysis of the Confrontation of Russian Identity and Nationalism with Chechen Identity and Ethnicity”, Central Asia and the Caucasus Studies, No. 87, pp. 33-60 [in Persian].
Jeperson, Ronald L., Alexander Went and Peter J. Katzenstein (2011), Norms, Identity and Culture in National Security, Translated by Mohammad Hadi Samati, First Edition, Tehran: Research Institute for Strategic Studies [in Persian].
Johnston, Alastair Ain (2011), Realism and Strategy of Maoist China, Translated by Mohammad Hadi Samati, First Edition, Tehran: Research Institute for Strategic Studies [in Persian].
Korosteleva, Elena and Zachary Paikin (2020), “Russia between East and West, and the Future of Eurasian Order”, International Politics, Vol. 57, No. 6, pp. 1-23.
Krickovic, Andrej and Igor Pellicciari (2021), “From Greater Europe to Great Eurasia: Status Concerns and the Evolution of Russia’s Approach to Alignment and Regional Integration”, Journal of Eurasian Studies, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 86-99.
Kuchins, Andrew C. (2018), “What is Eurasia to US (the U.S)?”, Journal of Eurasian Studies, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 125-133.
Lambert, Michel Eric (2017), “Russian Smart Power at Work in the Eastern Partnership”, Institute of International Relations, Available at: https://think.visegradfund.org/wpcontent/uploads/Lambert_ThinkVisegrad.pdf, (Accessed on: 2/7/2018).
Lauterbach, Toby (2011), Constructivism, Strategic Culture and the Iraq War, ASPJ Africa.
Lebow, Richard Ned (2008), A Cultural Theory of International Relation, New York: Cambridge.
Lukin, Alexander (2018), “Russian in the Asia – Pacific”, Asian Politics and Policy, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 571-598.
Mahnken, Thomas G. (2006), United States Strategic Culture, Defense Threat Reduction Agency.
Meyer, Davis S. (2004), “Protest and Political Opportunities”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 125-145.
Mohammad Nia, Mehdi (2010), “Understanding Iran’s Foreign Policy: an Application of Holistic Constructivism”, Journal of International Relation, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 135-158 [in Persian].
Moore, Russell (1998), Strategic Culture – How it Affects Strategic, U.S. Marine Corps.
Moshirzadeh, Homeira (2007), “Turning to US Foreign Policy and the Invasion of Iraq, Areas of Domestic Discourse”, Quarterly Journal of Politics, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 153-190 [in Persian].
Neumann, Iver B. and Heikka Henrikki (2005), “Grand Strategy, Strategic Culture Practice: the Social Roots of Nordic Defense”, Cooperation and Conflict, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 5-23.
Oliker, Olga and Keith Crane (2009), “Russian Foreign Policy: Sources and Implications”, Project Air Force, Available at: www.rand.org, file:///C:/Users/MYIII_S-M_1320/Downloads/RAND_MG768.pdf, (Accessed on: 3/9/2018).
Payne, Ruth (2015), “Using Rewards and Sanction in the Classroom: Pupil’s Perceptions of their Own Responses to Current Behavior Management Strategies”, Educational Review, Vol. 67, No. 4, pp. 483-504.
Piet, Remi and Licinia Simao (2016), Security in Shared Neighbourhoods Foreign Policy of Russia, Turkey and the EU, London, Palgrave Macmillan.
Rashidi, Ahmad (2019), “The Architecture of the Russian Soft Power Discourse”, Central Eurasia Studies, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 75-94 [in Persian].
Rasmussen, Mikkel Vedby (2005), “What’s the Use of it?: Danish Strategic Culture and the Utility if Armed Force”, Cooperation and Conflict: Journal of the Nordic International Studies Association, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 67-89.
Rasooli Saniabadi, Elham, Saeed Attar and Fatemeh Farsi (2019), “Study of Russian Foreign Policy Based on the Policy Theory of the Great Powers of Mersheimer (2012-2018)”, Central Eurasia Studies, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 57-73 [in Persian].
Rittberger, Volker (2014), Foreign Policy Analysis Approaches; Inspired by Theories of International Relations, Translated by Alireza Khosravi and Mehdi Mir Mohammadi, First Edition, Tehran: Research Institute for Strategic Studies [in Persian].
Rosa, Paolo (2014), “The Accommodationist State: Strategic Culture and Italy’s Military Behaviour”, International Relations, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 88-115.
Salimi, Hossein and Amin Hejazi (2019), “The Impact of Strategic Culture on Decision Making in the Foreign Policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran”, Quarterly Journal of Strategic Studies, Vol. 22, No. 97, pp. 103-137 [in Persian].
Salimi, Hossein and Leila Rahmatipour (2014), “Comparative Study of American and Chinese Strategic Culture”, Quarterly Journal of Strategic Studies, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 198-236 [in Persian].
Shlapentokh, Vladimir (2007), Contemporary Russia as a Feudal Society, a New Perspective on the Post – Soviet Era, Printed in the Wastchester Book United States of America, 2007th Edition, Palgrave Macmillan
Sinovets, Polina (2016), “From Stalin to Putin: Russian Strategic Culture in the XXI Century, its Continuity and Change”, Philosophy Study, Vol. 6, No. 7, pp. 417-423. 
Snyder, Jack (1997), “The Soviet Strategic Culture: Implications for Nuclear Options, a Project Air Force Report Prepared for the United States Air Force”, Available at: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/ reports/2005/R2154.pdf, (Accessed on: 24/7/2019).
Sokolsky, Richard and Eugene Rumer (2020), “U.S – Russian Relations in 2030”, Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,Available at: https://carnegieendowment.org/2020/06/15/u.s.-russian-relations-in-2030-pub-82056, (Accessed on: 2/3/2019).
Tishehyar, Mandana and Esmaiel Bakhshi (2020), “Russia and China’s New Silk Road Plan: Opportunities and Challenges”, Central Eurasia Studies, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 419-443 [in Persian].
Valizadeh, Akbar, Simin Shirazi and Hamidreza Azizi (2015), “The Impact of Ukraine Crisis in 2014 on the Relation of United States of America and Russia”, Central Eurasia Studies, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 149-171 [in Persian].
Yazdani, Enayatollah, Hassan Ayeneh Vand and Abolfazl Bagheri Ajieh (2015), “The Role of the United States and Russia in the Geopolitical Crisis of Georgia and Ukraine”, World Politics Quarterly, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 261-295 [in Persian].
Zahrani, Mustafa and Sarem Shiravand (2017), “Study of the Impact of Strategic Culture on the Foreign Policy of the Russian Federation”, Central Asia and the Caucasus Studies, Vol. 22, No. 97, pp. 103-137 [in Persian].