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.

The main aim of this thesis is to explore ways in which the discourse of the Russian government legitimises its war in Ukraine. The following Research Question is put forward: What role does the discourse of the Russian government play in their legitimisation of the war in Ukraine? It is done within context of the last four years (2021-2024) with the focus on Vladimir Putin as the embodiment of what the Russian government is. The thesis is placed within the context of postcolonial theory, with focus on the post-Soviet world and application of this theory within it. I have chosen thematic analysis as the method of analysis for this thesis. Doing so allows for extraction of four main themes around which the legitimisation of war revolves. The four main themes being: Ukraine and Russia are brotherly nations; Ukraine is ruled by an illegitimate government; Ukraine is an artificial nation within the ‘historic lands’ of Russia; Ukraine under neo-Nazi leadership is seeking to destroy Russia. Additionally two smaller themes were discovered which further augment the discourse coming from the Russian government. The findings of analysis indicate versatility and contradictions of discourse coming from the Russian government based on differences between found themes, but also its preference for negative approach to legitimisation. Here referring to underlining negative traits or presenting a pejorative image of Ukraine.

This thesis presents a discourse analysis of American perceptions of Russia in their historical and contemporary context. Through the linguistic construction of security offered by the Copenhagen School of Securitization, we can trace the socio-political development of Russia as the threatening other in the American discourse. This thesis has demonstrated the consistency of linguistic devices in the American Russia discourse from the 18th century to the Crimean Crisis, and has identified specific linguistic packages which securitizing actors unpack according to their preferences and goals in a given situation. This thesis also demonstrates that the resecuritization of a previously desecuritized object may occur through the use of preexisting discursive devices that play on existing elements of the national consciousness. Keywords Resecuritization, Securitization, United States, Russia, Socio-Political Discourse, Crimean Crisis, Copenhagen School, Obama Administration, Vladimir Putin Range of thesis: 121 pages, 34,048 words, 240,229 keystrokes.

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.

冷戰後加上後共時期的轉型促使俄羅斯與歐盟的關係日趨緊密，而俄羅斯的領導階層亦將俄歐關係視為戰略伙伴關係。俄羅斯在葉爾辛執政時期，由於決策階層對於俄歐夥伴關係缺乏清晰的認知，導致俄歐戰略夥伴關係之發展並未有重要成果。 俄羅斯對歐盟關係經過長時間的停滯不前後，在普欽執政下，歐盟逐漸成為俄羅斯外交政策的重要目標。俄羅斯與歐盟在政治、經濟、商貿及安全等領域之關係發展對於彼此均非常重要，但是雙方在民主、人權、貿易及能源等方面仍然存有許多分歧，俄羅斯與歐盟唯有透過協商及彼此妥協方能有效解決上述歧見。 / Post-Cold War and post-communist transformations had brought Russia closer to the European Union, the Russian leadership had declared that it had made a European choice and viewed EU-Russian relations as a strategic partnership. But during Yeltsin’s presidency, many Russian policy-makers seemed to lack a clear understanding of what to get from the EU-Russian partnership, the EU-Russia strategic partnership did not produce any serious results. After a decade of uncertainty about Russia’s relations to the EU, the EU has become a constant theme in Russia’s foreign policy discourse of Putin’s presidency. The relationship between Russia and the EU is very important to both parties in political, economic, business, and security terms. But there are many disputes between Russia and EU in democracy, human rights, trade, energy, etc. Russia and the EU can only solve these problems through negotiations and compromises.

Submitted by Filipe dos Santos (fsantos@pucsp.br) on 2017-01-12T17:50:07Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Luiz Fernando Mocelin Sperancete.pdf: 1912400 bytes, checksum: bd77f6a56f2773ce6b0c97f2867f7449 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-01-12T17:50:07Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Luiz Fernando Mocelin Sperancete.pdf: 1912400 bytes, checksum: bd77f6a56f2773ce6b0c97f2867f7449 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-12-19 / Conselho Nacional de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico - CNPq / This work has as objective contribute to the study of the Russian Federation during the long period in which Vladimir Putin is in the Kremlin’s command (2000-2016), and analyze the main aspects of the correction of direction that the Russian leader has been promoting on the political, economic and social course of the country. To this end, references are made to the selected theoretical aspects from “political realism”, having as key-authors Hans Morgenthau, Kenneth Waltz and Nicolau Maquiavel, and to the aspects of historical and social of the Russian’s national identity formation after the 1917’s October Revolution / Este trabalho tem como objetivo contribuir para o estudo da Federação Russa durante o longo período em que Vladimir Putin está no comando do Kremlin (2000-2016), e analisar os principais aspectos da correção de rumos que o líder russo vem promovendo no curso político, econômico e social do país. Para tanto, faz-se referência aos aspectos teóricos selecionados do “realismo político”, tendo como autores-chave Hans Morgenthau, Kenneth Waltz e Nicolau Maquiavel, e aos aspectos histórico e sociais da formação da identidade nacional russa após a Revolução de Outubro de 1917

自從蘇聯末期和中國的關係正常化以來，雙邊政治上的發展就不斷的提升，其中歷經了「建設性夥伴關係」、「戰略協作夥伴關係」，後來更簽訂「中俄睦鄰友好合作條約」，更進一步深化了兩國各方面的合作。在國際和區域上，也有著共同利益密切合作。 雙邊貿易方面，葉爾欽時期和普亭時期的兩國貿易往來有截然不同的結果。整個葉爾欽時期俄中貿易每年從未超過100億美元，但普亭時期不但突破百億美元大關，更在未來設定雙邊貿易預期目標達到600－800億美元，朝向另一個高峰邁進，雙邊貿易顯然增溫不少。因此本論文探究兩位總統時期對中國貿易政策的不同與比較。此外，雖然俄中雙邊關係到目前為止的發展良好，但是雙邊貿易合作上仍然顯的失色不少，也是本論文的觀察重點。 但是可以預見的未來，俄中貿易關係仍然會有所成長，特別是俄羅斯認為其國家利益在東方，按照目前的情況來看，俄羅斯東部地區尚未完全融入亞洲的經濟整合當中，兩國的經貿合作仍有進一步改善的空間。隨著兩國的經濟實力都不斷提升的狀況下，兩國各自的經濟發展也尚未達到目標，因此雙邊的經貿關係仍會持續進行，並有可能產生更多雙邊合作的發展，共同創造在未來國際經濟新秩序當中佔有一席之地。俄羅斯應該拋開過去對中國的成見，並努力實現其走向東方的外交政策，才能掌握中國經濟蓬勃發展的機遇，進而帶動本身經濟的成長，為俄羅斯東部創造更有利於開發的條件，這將是俄羅斯未來經濟發展重要的關鍵道路。 / Since the late period of USSR, the relationship between China and Russia has been promoting continuously. The “Sino-Russia Treaty of Friendship” enhances and deepens cooperation of both sides. Russia and China share common interest and cooperate together closely in international community and also in regions. As for bilateral trade aspect, the trade relationship of China and Russia has significant differences under Yeltsin and Putin period. Under Yeltsin period, the Sino-Russia trade has never over 10 billion US dollars annually, however, under Putin’s regime, annually the invest is over 10 million and also set up a goal of 60-80 billion US dollars annually, it is obvious that the both side trade relationship has been “heated up” a lot. Besides, although the bilateral relationship of China and Russia had a good progress, the trade cooperation of both sides still has space for improvement. This is one of the main issues which are observed in this research. According to current situation, the trade cooperation of both countries still has spaces for improvement because the east region of Russia has not been completely integrated into part of economic integration in Asia. However, the author contend that due to economic powers of China and Russia have been growing continuously and their economic developments have not yet reached the goals, so trade cooperation of both countries will undergo consistently and generate more opportunities for further cooperation to create an important role in new international economic orders in the future. The author concludes that Russia should abandon bias toward China and realize its foreign policy which is “walk into the East”. By doing this, Russia could grasp the best moment during prosperous economic development in China. Furthermore, it will help Russia overall economic growth and create more beneficial conditions for eastern Russia development.

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.

冷戰時期，蘇聯對印度支那半島政策的變化，是東南亞地區穩定的重要變數之一。蘇聯解體後，俄羅斯聯邦獨立，並且繼承原蘇聯所有的國際義務與權力。問題在於，在當代東南亞多元權力互動的格局中，俄羅斯在其間扮演何種角色？普丁政府在面臨國內外局勢變化之下，能否恢復俄羅斯（前蘇聯）在東南亞的國際政治利益？ 本文試圖透過地緣經濟分析途徑，來觀察冷戰後俄羅斯在普丁時期對東南亞政策之形成背景、主要內涵，以及互動關係。本文認為，隨著冷戰終結和亞太國際局勢之變化，亞太地區主要政治力量都在調整自身的政治、經濟、外交和安全戰略。為了保障區域安全、和平與穩定，東南亞國家加速東協整合及擴大的腳步，期望在政經及安全問題方面達成共識，並力求獲得區域事務的主導權和影響力。俄羅斯與東南亞諸國發展關係在於保障國家經濟利益的實現，進而追求在亞太地區中取得優勢地位，最終完成大國地位的目標。 首先，本文探討自蘇聯解體後俄羅斯獨立以來，俄羅斯外交思想、地緣戰略思想之演變與俄羅斯亞太政策的關係。同時，回顧蘇聯最後一任領導人戈巴契夫、俄羅斯前任總統葉爾欽及現任總統普丁亞太政策的變遷重點，旨在檢視俄羅斯對東南亞政策的歷史脈絡時，有比較清晰的政策變動觀點以供分析。 其次，本文討論俄羅斯（包括前蘇聯）與東南亞主要國家的雙邊關係，而以政治、經濟、軍事及文化等面向為分析層次，依次觀察和分析雙邊關係所呈現的特色和問題。研究分成俄羅斯與傳統邦交國和俄羅斯與美國盟國兩部份，分析雙邊關係合作的原因、過程、變動和影響。 最後，藉由回顧前蘇聯與東協關係的發展歷程，探討俄羅斯與東協國家之多邊政治對話、經貿及軍事關係，主要目的在瞭解普丁政府對東南亞地區各國間多邊關係之態度、立場及政策。 / During the cold war, Soviet involvement in Indochina Peninsula was one of the crucial factors which affected the political stability in Southeast Asia. After the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation gained independence and inherited all the privileges and obligations of the former Soviet Union in the international arena, but the situation in Indochina and Southeast Asia has changed a great deal. What role does Russia play in this important geopolitical region? Given the new domestic and international realities, will the Putin government regain the political interests and influence which the former Soviet Union once possessed in this region? Through geo-economic analysis, this thesis tries to explore the main contents of the Putin government's policy toward Southeast Asia, its formation background and the establishment of multi-lateral relationship with the major countries in this area. We observe that, with the end of the Cold War, and facing a different international situation, all the major political entities in SE Asia are making adjustments on the political and economic fronts, as well as in foreign and security policies. For the sake of regional security and stability, SE Asia countries have accelerated the expansion and integration of the ASEAN organization to secure its leadership in the regional affairs. From the Russian point of view, economy is no doubt a major factor which influences it policy formation in recent years. Starting from the pursuit of national economic interests, Russia also hopes to regain the status of a major player in this region, as the former Soviet Union once had. To start with, we study the evolution of Russian foreign policy and geopolitical thoughts and its relation to Russia's Asian Pacific policy. Also, we review the changes in the Asian pacific policies during the years of Gorbachov, Yeltsin, and Putin. The aim is to gain a clearer view of the factors which affected the making of the policies. Secondly, we discuss the bilateral relationships between the major countries of SE Asia and Russia (and also the former Soviet Union), which include political, economic, military, and cultural aspects. We try to extract the special features and problems in these bilateral relationships. This studies is divided into two parts, one includes countries which were traditional allies of the former Soviet Union, while the other includes countries which belonged to the opposite camp - aligned with the USA. We study the major driving factors and the historical steps which resulted in the establishment of full bilateral cooperation between Russia and various SE Asian countries. Finally, after a review of the relationship between the former Soviet Union and ASEAN, we investigate Russia's establishment of multi-lateral dialogue with ASEAN countries on political, economic, and military fronts. The aim is to understand the motive and policy of the Putin government in the area of multi-national cooperation in SE Asia.