This paper analyses how Putin legitimizes his role conceptions in order to justify his annexation of Crimea. In order to reduce the likelihood of the foreign role being challenged while subscribing to the ego and alter expectations, it is necessary for decision makers to legitimize role perceptions. In this paper, the concept of role legitimation is developed and two mechanisms for legitimating roles are proposed. The first mechanism is ego expectations, namely the revival of roles from a specific period of time that is deeply embedded as an inalienable historical feature of the state. The second is alter expectations, namely the reproduction of international expectations in foreign policy discourse. To illustrate the argument, Putin's speech after the annexation of Crimea in 2014 is analyzed.

Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in securitizing discourse of the USA and Russia: Role in the process of security policy formation of nuclear-armed states Abstract This master thesis deals with a political usage of securitization of weapons of mass destruction by presidents of the two most important nuclear powers - USA and Russian Federation. For this purpose, discursive analysis of speeches of both presidents during their first terms is performed, with a goal to identify and interpret the securitizational discourse. Result is the analysis of most common type of usage of WMD securitization for legitimization of foreign-political steps and goals of these states, and their comparison. Results of the analysis shows that in the case of the US, WMD securitization was being used mainly for legitimization of politics of active formation of international situation so it would fit the US interests. In the case of Russia on the other hand, analysed discourse was being used mainly for preservation of international status quo in as stable form as possible, due to priority of domestic situation. In both cases however, predominantly economical motivations for the use of analysed discourse can be argued.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine has catalyzed a battle of perspectives and different framings of theconflict between both parties involved. The central figure of the framing on the Russian side hasbeen Vladimir Putin who through his discourse attempted to justify his war efforts by framing theinvasion as a civilizational conflict. Even though, there has been a growing body of literature that hasanalyzed the civilizational shift in discourse of Vladimir Putin. There has not been much theoreticalengagement with the “clash of civilizations” thesis outlined by Samuel P. Huntington (1993). Existing research on this topic remains limited due to the fact that the events covered in this thesis happenedlast year. This paper aims to fill gaps in existing research by analyzing Putin's Annexation Speech delivered on September 30, 2022, during the signing of treaties annexing four Ukrainian regions tothe Russian Federation. Employing Norman Fairclough's three-dimensional model (1989;1992;2010), this study provides a comprehensive analysis of Putin's Annexation Speech to ascertain theextent to which Putin utilized the "clash of civilizations". The main thesis of this paper is that Vladimir Putin largely built on the “clash of civilizations” concept in his speech to frame the conflict in aspecific way. Additionally, it is argued that the utilization of this rhetoric is likely to influence theconflict and preserve it at its current scale in the foreseeable future.

No / The Russo-Chechen conflict has been the bloodiest war in Europe since the Second World War. It continues to drag on, despite the fact that it hits the headlines only when there is some 'terrorist spectacular'. Providing a comprehensive overview of the war and the issues connected with it, the author examines the origins of the conflict historically and traces how both sides were dragged inexorably into war in the early 1990s. The book discusses the two wars (1994-96 and 1999 to date), the intervening truce and shows how a downward spiral of violence has led to a mutually-damaging impasse from which neither side has been able to remove itself. It applies theories of conflict, especially theories of terrorism and counter-terrorism and concludes by proposing some alternative resolutions that might lead to a just and lasting peace in the region.

This essay aims to present three different perspectives through which to analyse the decision made by Russia to invade Ukraine in 2022. The three perspectives used are based on the three theories of decision making found in the book Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (Allison & Zelikow, 1999) and are as follows: the rational actor model, the organisational model, and the bureaucratic model. Firstly, all the models are presented and three indicators for each model are determined. These indicators provide a framework for when finding and selecting relevant empirical evidence. Secondly, the decision by Russia to invade Ukraine is presented through the lens of each model – this, paired with empirical evidence, aims to give a deeper understanding of the theoretical models’ application to the case. Throughout the course of the study, we find that there is empirical evidence that supports theoretical reasoning viewed through all three models. Although there is far more to uncover regarding the decision to invade Ukraine, qualitative case studies such as this one can act as a means to further the interest and understanding of the subject.

No description available.

This thesis seeks to analyze Russia&rsquo / s responses to globalization under Vladimir Putin in the fields of energy and foreign policy. This thesis argues that Russia under Vladimir Putin has redefined its process of globalization through a nationalistic perspective as its policies in the field of energy and foreign policy demonstrate. The thesis has seven chapters including introduction and conclusion chapters. The concept of globalization is explored in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 examines Russia&rsquo / s globalization under Boris Yeltsin and his energy and foreign policies. In Chapter 4, responses of Russian communist, nationalist and liberal intellectuals, to the globalization of Russia under Boris Yeltsin are evaluated. Chapter 5 explores the energy policy of Vladimir Putin while Chapter 6 discusses foreign policy of Russia under Vladimir Putin.

There is a consistent thread throughout Russian history of governmental management of culture. Tsars and Communist bureaucrats alike have sought to variously promote, censor, or exploit writers, filmmakers, and musicians to control and define the country's cultural content. Often, these measures were intended not necessarily to cultivate Russia's aesthetic spirit, but to accomplish specific policy goals. The promotion of a State ideology and other efforts to stave of social unrest were chief among them. With the fall of Soviet power and the loss of an official ideology promoted by the state, the concept of cultural politics fell to the wayside. It has remained largely ignored ever since. Despite numerous high-profile incidents of persecution of the creative class, analysts have not linked them together as part of an overarching cultural policy. However, the Russian government under Vladimir Putin has faced consistent policy challenges since the beginning of the 2000s that could be mitigated through the implementation of such a policy. In some ways, the breadth and character of State involvement in the cultural sphere follows the pattern of the country’s autocratic past. In others, it demonstrates that it has adapted these policies to function in the hybrid regime that Putin has created, as opposed to the totalitarian ones that preceded it. A recent case that exemplifies this new breed of cultural policy is the persecution of the radical feminist punk band Pussy Riot. While largely unknown to many Russian citizens, the group’s overt opposition to the patriarchal model of rule established by Putin with the help of the Russian Orthodox Church was met by the most comprehensive crackdown within the cultural sphere since perestroika. Examining this case in detail can reveal the extent to which the Russian government is concerned about its ability to maintain popular legitimacy. The fact that it has continued to try to manage the cultural sphere may indicate the level of democracy that has or has not been established in Russia so far today. / text

CHANGE AND CONTINUITY IN RUSSIA&rsquo / S RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES IN EURASIA (2000-2005) Dereli, Pinar M. Sc., Department of Eurasian Studies Supervisor: Assit. Prof. Dr. Oktay F. Tanrisever June 2006, 112 pages This thesis seeks to analyze change and continuity in Russia&rsquo / s relations with the United States (US) in Eurasia under the leadership of Vladimir Putin between 2000 and 2005. The thesis argues that the fundamental change in Russia&rsquo / s relations with the US came immediately after Putin&rsquo / s presidency, rather than 9/11 terrorist attacks, as his foreign policy priorities required the establishment of close relations with the US as much as possible. The September 11 terrorist attacks have only facilitated the implementation of Putin&rsquo / s this pragmatic foreign policy. In fact, the continuation of differences between Russia and the US concerning bilateral and regional issues shows that their strategic partnership is mainly rhetoric driven by the short-term tactical considerations rather than shared global values and long-term interests. For this reason, Eurasia continued to be an area of confrontation in Russia&rsquo / s relations with the US in the post-9/11 era. The thesis consists of four main chapters apart from introduction and conclusion. The first main chapter discusses the evolution of Russian foreign policy towards the US between 1991 and 2000. The following chapter deals with the sources of change in Russian foreign policy towards the US before 9/11 events. The next chapter examines Russian-US bilateral relations after 9/11. Finally, the last chapter discusses the impact of 9/11 on the Russian-US relations in Eurasia. Keywords: Pragmatism, Vladimir Putin, Russian foreign policy, the United States, September 11.

Starting from a personal, contemporary outlook on society today, it might be obvious for a reader to immediately think of media as global, an entity hovering over national borders, transcending geography and geo-politics. As such viewers, we ignore thus that media - and the press in particular - have for a long time in the past been associated and tightly linked with mechanisms of nation-building, as well as with concepts such as nation, national identity and nationalism. Living in Sweden one might be acquainted with a fairly frequent representation of Russia in the media, just as well as with a fairly specific one; and the same would plausibly go for other countries. Through a narrative analysis of newspaper articles, this study focuses on the comparison of the representation of Russia in Swedish and Italian liberal online press in order to research whether the weaker degree of partisanship that characterises liberal journalism would still allow for two different storylines about Russia to be told through different narratives. With Daniel C. Hallin and Paolo Mancini’s study of media systems, as well as Kristina Riegert’s comparison of national representation in foreign news as a background, this study researches whether societal and political agendas and partisanship shape the image (and hence narration) of Russia in the two countries’ newspapers. Using Allan Bell’s values of newsworthiness and Vladimir Propp’s analysis of the quest’s narrative structure, it concludes that although the storylines about Russia told by the two countries were in fact different and plausibly coherent with the respective country’s circumstances (with a margin of exception), their narrative did not fully represent the model that Hallin and Mancini had assigned them.