The thesis seeks to chart the foundation and transformation of NATO-Russia relations from Yeltsin to Putin and Medvedev. It attempts to potray the continuity and change in the Russian Foreign Policy towards NATO in the light of the main international developments such as the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the Bosnian war and the Kosovo conflict / as well as the internal transformation of the Alliance marked by the extension of the traditional NATO roles and the expansion policy. The thesis tries to depict the new initiatives in the Russian Foreign policy aimed at undermining NATO and US&rsquo / roles in Europe by attempting to establish an alternative European architecture to a NATO-centric one. It is argued that while Yeltsin promoted multilateralism based on the world led by the USA and the Russian Federation on a par, Putin and Medvedev&rsquo / s multilateralism was to undermine the American world hegemony and consolidate relations with Europe.

The thesis aims to discuss the process of nation-building and discourse of Russian nationalism of the Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2000 - 2008. It focuses on the rise of the nationalism in Russia since 2000 and analyzes discourse of nationalism at the state level, in culture and religious sphere, as well as its representation in various ultra right-wing political movements. The thesis argues that despite the ethnic elements in Vladimir Putin&rsquo / s discourse of Russian nationalism, his version of nationalism is not ethnic, but rather multiethnic and inclusive that seeks to promote loyalty to the Russian state among the Russian citizens without eliminating their ethnic identities. In fact, Putin&rsquo / s version of nationalism is multidimensional. Unlike ethnicity, religion and other cultural elements, the loyalty to the state constitute the core of this nationalism. The thesis comprises of four main chapters. After the introduction chapter, the second chapter examines the main projects of the Russian nation-building and identity construction that emerged after the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, and explains which of them were chosen by the leadership of the republic. The third chapter focuses on the discussion of the nation-building under Boris Yeltsin. The fourth chapter is the analysis of Vladimir Putin&rsquo / s nation-building policy and his discourse of nationalism. The fifth chapter analyses the foreign policy of Vladimir Putin, paying attention to policy towards compatriots in the near abroad, countries of the CIS and West. The concluding chapter discusses the main findings of the thesis.

When the Soviet union collapsed at the beginning of the 1990s, a democratization began to develop. During the Jeltsin years, democracy in Russia was developing steadily, but since Putin became president at the turn of the century it has started to move back towards authoritarian rule. The purpose of this study is to explore the reasons for why the democracy in Russia never became consolidated and to understand why the country again has moved towards an authoritarian rule, like the one during the Soviet union. In order to fulfill the aim of this study, two theories were used. These were Linz and Stepan's consolidation theory, about the five arenas that have to be developed, and Samuel P. Huntington's theory about authoritarian nostalgia. In order to answer the questions that this study puts forward, these theories were used against empirical material about Russia. The results of the study show that Russia does not live up to the requirements in any of the five arenas and therefore could not possibly develop a consolidated democracy. It also seems as if the return to authoritarianism in Russia can be blamed on a combination of nostalgia for the Soviet union, which developed during the economic crisis of the 1990s, and an increasing nationalism amongst the population.

This thesis aims to examine the evolution of the discourse of Eurasianism and its impact on the formulation and implementation of post-Soviet Russian foreign policy. The thesis argues that both of Russia&rsquo / s post-Soviet leaders: Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin have used the discourse of neo-Eurasianism pragmatically whenever it suited Russia&rsquo / s interests. Moscow ignored this discourse when its foreign policy interests contradicted with the main tenets of this ideology. The thesis has five chapters. Following the introductory chapter, the second chapter explores the evolution of Eurasianism as a discourse and its main variants in post-Soviet era. The third chapter examines the relationship between the Eurasianist discourse and Russian foreign policy under Boris Yeltsin. The fourth chapter discusses the same relationship under Vladimir Putin. The concluding chapter evaluates the main findings of this thesis.

Thesis (M.A.) - Carleton University, 2003. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 134-145). Also available in electronic format on the Internet.

Thesis (M.A. in Security Studies (Western Hemisphere))--Naval Postgraduate School, June 2009. / Thesis Advisor(s): Giraldo, Jeanne K. "June 2009." Description based on title screen as viewed on 13 July 2009. Author(s) subject terms: United States, Venezuela, Russia, Vladimir Putin, Dmitry Medvedev, Hugo Chávez, perception, Constructivism, oil, arms sales, petroleum, energy, International Relations Theory, Strategic, Realism, Liberalism, Siloviki, PDVSA, GAZPROM, democracy. Includes bibliographical references (p. 97-126). Also available in print.

Thesis (M.A. in National Security Affairs)--Naval Postgraduate School, June 2005. / Thesis Advisor(s): Anne Clunan, Robert Looney. Includes bibliographical references (p. 69-75). Also available online.

This work analyses the development of Russian Federation during the presidency of V. Putin in years 2000-2008. It is especially concentrated on the internal development. It starts by summarizing of the Yeltsin period to understand the background, V. Putin was entering into, and to compare both systems in their continuity or difference. Concerning internal affairs, the work focuses on political consolidation, economic stabilization and the evolution of the Russian society. In foreign affairs, it analyses Russia's attitudes towards great powers like EU, USA or China. It mentions also the relations with the post-Soviet countries. Last but not least, the work brings a conclusion about the Russian identity and success of the reforms.

When the Soviet Union fell it marked the end of an era the ones totalitarian communist state collapsed and, in its place, a new state called Russa emerged with a new leader Boris Yeltsin as the great reformer who had a mission of making Russia a country similar to those int the west. This dream was not to last long soon after his arrival the economy crashed, inflation had skyrocketed, and crime and unemployment struck the country. Boris Yeltsin started privatizing vast numbers of previously state-owned industries which helped create a new elitist class in the oligarchs.    The purpose of this essay is to analyze the post-soviet state of Russia and its social and economic elements to determine when an oligarchic structure emerged and how this oligarchy was able to establish a social contract with the Russian people. This will be done with the help of the essays two theories surrounding elitism and conractualism.    The result this essay reached was that there are two significant decisions taken by the Yeltsin administration which led to the creation of an oligarchic state these are the two privatization waves. These privatizations made a few men very powerful and we can see the extent of their power and influence in the presidential election of 1997. Were they managed to get Yeltsin reelected even though his popularity was at its lowest by using their massive influence such as their media empire. When Putin got elected it represented a new era of Russian politics, he promised to end the chaos of the 1990s and reestablish security in Russia and put the oligarchs in line. He was able to do this much because of the rising oil prices and the use of Russian nationalism to his advantage. He was able to restore a social contract with the Russian people in turn for less freedom he would guarantee them security and stability

Researchers have referred to Vladimir Putin as a “History man”. It has been confirmed that he takes a great personal interest in history and frequently speaks about the topic. However, previous research has not taken account for how Putin gives his statements about history additional authority. One way in which he does this is by referring to archives and archival documents, thus giving his statements about history an additional aura of “truthfulness”. This essay aims to partially fill the gap in previous research by examining Putin’s statements about history and archives from a perspective of archival science by asking the following research questions: “How does Putin view archives and archival records?”, “What can archives be used for and what characteristics are they given by Putin?”. The theoretical and methodological basis for this essay is discourse analysis and Jörn Rüsen’s typology of historical narratives. By examining the discourses Vladimir Putin expresses and reproduces about archives insight has been gained into the way in which a prominent politician uses archives, how he views their function in society and what their characteristics are. As Vladimir Putin seemingly always speaks about archives in relation to history the latter could not be ignored, which is why Rüsens’ typology was used to examine what kind of historical narrative Putin expresses when speaking about archives. The analysis in this essay shows that Vladimir Putin has a strong belief in archives as mirrors of the past. According to the Russian President archives portray a completely accurate and unquestionable account for how history has unfolded. He dismisses any historical narrative that is not based on archival documents as politicized speculation. In Putin’s eyes archives also play a central role in preserving a common, national heritage for the entire Russian nation as a whole.