Measuring Hierarchy in the European Union and Eastern Partnership Countries
For more than a decade, Russian foreign policy has pursued a policy of re-establishing a sphere of influence in areas formerly governed or dominated by the Soviet Union. This chapter places Russia’s policy within the theoretical frame of hierarchy in international relations, that is, the establishment of unequal political relations between two juridically equal states. I introduce an original Hierarchy and Resilience Index (HRI), based on a novel data set, which evaluates the hierarchical relations of Russia, the United States, and China along security, economic, diplomatic, and informational categories. Initial results indicate that Russia’s attempts to recreate a sphere of influence in Europe and Eurasia have largely failed, particularly in the states of the Eastern Partnership. War and frozen conflict in Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova have seen those states minimise connections with Russia, while Russia has emphasised military relations with Belarus, Armenia, and Azerbaijan even more strongly. For the European Union, its political choices are relatively clear for the Eastern Partnership. Since those states are the object of security competition between Russia and the United States, and economic competition between China and all other external powers, the European Union will have to engage with the competitive international environment on its eastern borders or cede political influence to others.
KeywordsRussian foreign policy Eastern parternship Resilience United States foreign policy Chinese foreign policy
I wish to thank Michael Smeltzer for invaluable research assistance in the compilation of the Hierarchy and Resilience Index, and Laura Gold for ongoing support and editing assistance. I also wish to thank Henry Hale and Marlene Laruelle of George Washington University for arranging audiences at the US Department of State and Program on New Approaches to Research and Security in Eurasia in April 2019 to present the first drafts of this research. Gratitude as well to Gabriela Carmen Pascariu, Gilles Rouet, and panel participants at the initial conference in Iasi, Romania. All errors remain my own.
- Barkanov, B. (2018). Natural Gas. In A. P. Tsygankov (Ed.), Routledge Handbook of Russian Foreign Policy (pp. 154–168). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Coffey, L. (2012). Keeping America Safe: Why U.S. Bases in Europe Remain Vital. Washington, DC: Heritage Institute. Retrieved from https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/keeping-america-safe-why-us-bases-europe-remain-vital.Google Scholar
- Eder, T. (2018). MERICS Belt and Road Tracker. Berlin: Mercator Institute for China Studies. Retrieved from https://www.merics.org/en/bri-tracker/mapping-the-belt-and-road-initiative.Google Scholar
- Gunitsky, S. (2018, April 27). One Word to Improve U.S. Russia Policy. Retrieved from https://newrepublic.com/article/148140/one-word-fix-us-russia-policy.
- Holland, E. J. (2017). Poisoned by Gas: Institutional Failure, Energy Dependency, and Security. New York: Columbia University.Google Scholar
- Hurley, J., Morris, S., & Portelance, G. (2018). Examining the Debt Implications of the Belt and Road Initiative from a Policy Perspective. CGD Policy Paper, 121. Retrieved from https://www.cgdev.org/sites/default/files/examining-debt-implications-belt-and-road-initiative-policy-perspective.pdf.
- Karaganov, S. (2015). Europe: A Defeat at the Hands of Victory? Russia in Global Affairs, 13(1), 8–22.Google Scholar
- Keil, S., & Michelot, M. (2017). Drawing Red Lines in Gray Areas: Deterring Russia’s Challenge to Transatlantic Security Today. German Marshall Fund of the United States.Google Scholar
- Lake, D. A. (2009). Hierarchy in International Relations. New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
- McClory, J. (2018). The Soft Power 30: A Global Ranking of Soft Power. Portland: USC Center on Public Diplomacy.Google Scholar
- Mead, W. R. (2014). The Return of Geopolitics: The Revenge of the Revisionist Powers. Foreign Affairs, 93, 69.Google Scholar
- Nielsen, K. L., & Vilson, M. (2014). The Eastern Partnership: Soft Power Strategy or Policy Failure? European Foreign Affairs Review, 19(2), 243–262.Google Scholar
- Nye, J. S., Jr. (2017). Will the Liberal Order Survive: The History of an Idea. Foreign Affairs, 96(1), 10.Google Scholar
- Putin, V. (2007). Speech and the Following Discussion at the Munich Conference on Security Policy. Retrieved from http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/24034.
- Sestanovich, S. (2000). Where Does Russia Belong? The National Interest, 62, 5–16.Google Scholar
- Suslov, D. (2016). The Russian Perception of the Post–Cold War Era and Relations with the West. Columbia University: Harriman Institute. Retrieved from https://www.sant.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/university-consortium/files/suslov_harriman_lecture_on_post-cold_war_era.pdf.
- Voeten, E., Strezhnev, A., & Bailey, M. (2015). United Nations General Assembly Voting Data: Harvard Dataverse. Retrieved from https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=hdl:1902.1/12379.
- Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of International Politics. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Weber, Y. (2016). Are We in a Cold War or Not? 1989, 1991, and Great Power Dissatisfaction. E-International Relations. Retrieved from https://www.e-ir.info/2016/03/07/are-we-in-a-cold-war-or-not-1989-1991-and-great-power-dissatisfaction/.
- Wu, I. S. (2018). Soft Power Amidst Great Power Competition. Washington, DC: Wilson Center.Google Scholar
- Yeltsin, B. (1992). Address to Joint Session of U.S. Congress. Retrieved from http://www.speeches-usa.com/Transcripts/047_yeltsin.html.
- Zagorski, A. (2011). Eastern Partnership from the Russian Perspective. Internationale Politik und Gesellschaft, 3(5), 41–61.Google Scholar