In Considering Russia’S Actions, Russia’S Constant Counteracts

Throughout its long history, Russia has been trapped in a continuous cycle of authoritarian regimes; only interrupted briefly with periods of tumultuous democratic transitions that were plagued by poor bureaucracy and weak institutions. Therefore, time and time again, Russia has turned towards authoritarianism. In the late 1900’s to early 2000’s, Russia again saw the fall of democracy coincide with the rise of a competitive authoritarian regime. This rise of competitive authoritarianism in Russia in the late 1900’s to early 2000’s was largely the result of the resource curse which granted Putin’s Administration false economic performance legitimacy. This in turn reinvigorated past strongman ideals, while at the same time solidified negative

One country is comparable to the United States of America in terms of world power and prominence. Russia makes their name known beginning in World War 2 (WW2), later in the Korean War, Cold War, and today’s proxy war in the Syria. Russia’s culture, environment, politics, military, and economy do not just make Russia a regional powerhouse, but slowly becoming a region of influential power to surrounding countries with the end state of a global superpower. All the factors that make Russia the powerhouse that it is slowly becoming, highlights the impressive trend that supersedes the previous Soviet Union and past leaders.

Before we begin in analyzing Putin’s Russia we must outline a few of the essential factors of the realist stance in international relations that can be traced back to Machiavelli’s The Prince. First, we ought to see at the existing position in the world that includes negative features. Second, it aims to have an unfavorable aspect of human nature as

It seems Obama’s foreign policy in Russia has to do with institutional constraints and reminding the kremlin of American economic power and their dependence on its support. The contrast between Obama’s realism in one situation and liberalism in another communicates that his foreign policy strategy of “smart power” has more to do with approval ratings and money than a principled construction of foreign policy through bending and blending. Obama’s sanctions attempt to secure U.S. economic hegemony by weakening the ruble relative to the dollar, and Obama’s treasury department believes this strategy works better than hard power. Regardless of Obama’s hard or soft power, the motive behind his foreign policy remains the same: ensuring U.S. hegemony. Though realism cannot fully explain Obama’s instrumental mechanisms for ensuring such an effect, realism does explain the Obama Administration’s motives for global dominance—liberalism (and sometimes constructivism) merely justifies the

Through the USSR rule, a great number of imperial autocracy aspects of its forms of governance, social and economic reforms were reproduced such as central control and nationalism policies, for example, Russification. However, there is a debate if Stalinism was a continuation of Tsarist autocracy due to differences between two regimes as the Bolshevik government categorically refused to be defined as an empire; contrastingly, its leaders saw imperialism as the policy adopted in capitalist states which have been viewed as competitors and enemies which bring a contradictory argument. This essay will argue that although in theory, the differences between Imperialism and Communism were colossal, a leading argument about Russia, famously defended

Another Important reason to step up our game is that the Russian army backs the Syrian army which now allows them to have the artillery to destroy their opponents like ISIS and the Kurds. In his article in the Independent Patrick Cockburn Informs readers that the Syrian army has been Reclaiming lands with the support of the Russian army. This is alarming since the United States backs groups like the Kurds and hope they will over through President al-assad, however this is clearly not the case as the opposite effect seems to be happening for these rebel groups. Secondly In the Article Putin’s Middle East Dream The Authors say putin took the weakness of the Syrian government as threat to their nation’s security as they have a weak economy. The reason this is important is because Russia has a reason to use their military and as we know show little fear during war. Now that Russia is heavily involved in the middle east the need to protect american influence is higher than ever with the Syrian government regain control of their nation.

1. The purpose of this paper is to give background on Russia’s history and mythology as well as its economy and natural resources. This paper will further explore the ways in which these domains influence Russia’s actions in regards to US interests.

History Professor Steven G. Marks, from Clemson University, asserts Russia significantly influenced the world both politically and culturally, particularly between 1880 and 1980 in How Russia Shaped the Modern World. Regardless of Russia's inner turmoil, their detachment from Western values became an emblem of opposition for those who held animosity to the West. Another integral part of Russia's involvement in world history is the Western reaction to its impact a few decades ago. By creating and spreading concepts Russia shaped the twentieth century, taking this into consideration allows new insight on modern history. The chapters go into specific examples, in terms of politics how anarchism and modern terrorism, as adopted by those fighting

With Russia’s recent move into Syria, the US is left scratching its head as to what to do about Putin, Assad, US-backed Syrian rebels, and Iran’s involvement in the melee. Until recently, the United States efforts in Syria have been focused on training “moderate” rebels in a bid to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and neutralize the ever-growing threat that ISIS poses. Russia’s recent air strikes in the region, coupled with the inevitable Iranian ground invasion, severely hamper US plans in the Syria. The effect this will have on US influence in the region is an issue, as well as what the eventual post-conflict results will have on US interests and allies in the region, particularly Israel.

In Putin’s Kleptocracy: Who Owns Russia?, Karen Dawisha relates Russian President Vladmir Putin’s rise to power. She overarchingly claims that Putin is an authoritarian leader who has obstructed and even reverted Russia’s path of democratization, citing, amongst many factors that enabled his ascension, his “interlocking web of personal connections in which he was the linchpin” (100), money-laundering to tax havens and personal projects, and the complicity of the West. With copious research, journalistic interviews, legal documents, and even sporadic informational diagrams, it is evident why her book is so popular amongst scholars and history enthusiasts. Unfortunately however, in spite of the grand yet oftentimes substantiated claims she generates, a more subtle yet noteworthy assumption is made: that the state is a protector, as Olson proffered. She employs this theoretical underpinning from the beginning, though is not representative of Putin’s actual authoritarian regime.

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, takes a Realism approach to policy formulation. Mr. Putin is viewed as man that takes action, with “his swift military interventions” (3). Mr.

The largest nation in the world, Russia has demonstrated acts comparable to the Soviet Union. For instance, their military agreements with the Syrian national army (which believe in the oppression of citizens and the rule of a totalitarian dictator named Bashar al-Assad in the civil-war stricken Syria) have inflicted controversy in the UN Security Council. Furthermore, their invasion in Ukraine’s Crimean territory and obstinacy against the UN resulted in the Security Council and NATO sanctioning Russia for its civil

One cannot talk about Syria without talking about the region as a whole. Since the end of the Cold War three Western led ground operations in the Middle East have been added massive strain to societies still recovering from centuries of colonialism and the authoritarian regimes that followed the colonial era. Western interference and intervention did not cease with the independence of nation-states in the region as the numerous wars and propping up of authoritarian regimes since 1945 can attest to. The establishment of the Israeli state following World War Two has caused multiple conflicts in the region, as have longstanding animosity between Iran and Arab nations and the Iran-Iraq war.

Many scholars have observed IR (International relations) through different theoretical lens throughout time, the two most debated on theoretical lens in international relation are liberalism and realism. Realism according to Korab-Karpowicz is the view of international politics in which states are only concerned with there own self interest, security and struggle of power (Korab-Karpowicz/2017). While on the other hand liberalism defined by John Ikenberry is the focus of “society, interdependence and progressive change”(Ikenberry 2009/pg.204-205).Although realism sees the world in a pessimistic view, it is the most powerful descriptor of IR. This essay will support the claim that realism has provided a more convincing description of IR through the analysis of power lust, self security and economic greed states have shown throughout time. However the essay will also entertain liberalist arguments through the view of interdependence and common interest.

Which Bashar al-Assad Syria’s president has allowed Russia to keep there in return for protection and good trade relationships. This is where the civil war in Syria comes into play, if Assad loses control of Syria; then Russia would lose control of its Tartus naval base. Russia wouldn’t be involved in Syria’s conflicts if it didn’t affect how powerful they are as a country. With Tartus being Russia’s only base in the Mediterranean, it is obvious that they want to keep that presence there, so they don’t lose what influence they have in that region of the world. America, Russia and China have the top three militaries in the world and if Russia loses control of Tartus they become the only country of these three to not have some military base in the Mediterranean. This is why Russia is fighting so hard to keep Assad in office, because they don’t want to lose that power.