Abstract
Precipitated by the abortive coup of August 1991 and made imminent by the creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), the collapse of the Soviet Union finally became a fait accompli on 25 December 1991. Since the very beginning of perestroika waves of secessionist nationalism encompassing various of the 15 Soviet republics undermined what used to be the invincible Union structures, thus bringing the very existence of the USSR as a single entity into question. But, it was ultimately the actions of the Russian Federation that precipitated the superpower’s rapid disintegration.1
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
This argument is developed fully in John B. Dunlop, The Rise of Russia and the Fall of the Soviet Empire (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993).
Stephen R. Covington and John Lough, ‘Russia’s Post-Revolution Challenge: Reform of the Soviet Superpower Paradigm’, The Washington Quarterly, vol. 15, no. 1 (1992), pp. 5–22.
John Lough, ‘Defining Russia’s Relations with Neighboring States’, RFE/RL Research Report, vol. 2, no. 20 (1993), p. 53.
Also, see Lough’s earlier article, ‘The Place of the “Near Abroad” in Russian Foreign Policy’, RFE/RL Research Report, vol. 2, no. 11 (1993), pp. 21–9 and two essays by Andrei Zagorski, ‘Rußlands Beziehungen zum “fernen” und “nahen Ausland” and “Die Gemeinschaft unabhängiger Staaten: Entwicklungen und Perspektiven”, nos. 46 and 50 (1992), respectively, of Berichte des Bundesinstituts für ostwissenschaftliche und internationale Studien.
Cited in Suzanne Crow, ‘Russia Seeks Leadership in Regional Peacekeeping’, RFE/RL Research Report, vol. 2, no. 15 (1993), p. 28.
Suzanne Crow, ‘Russia Promotes the CIS as an International Organization’, RFE/RL Research Report, vol. 3, no. 11 (18 March 1994), pp. 33–8.
For perceptive analyses of the shifts in Russian policy see Alexei Arbatov, ‘Russia’s Foreign Policy Alternatives’, International Security, vol. 18, no. 4 (1993), pp. 5–43;
Heinz Timmermann, ‘Rußlands Außenpolitik: Die europäische Dimension’, Osteuropa, vol. 45, no. 6 (1995), pp. 495–508;
Hannes Adomeit, ‘Russia as a “Great Power” in World Affairs: Images and Reality’, International Affairs, vol. 71, no. 1 (1995), pp. 35–68;
and Paul A. Goble, ‘Moscow’s New Politics Built on Sand’, Prism, Jamestown Foundation, 14 July 1995, part 1.
Richard Sakwa, ‘Parties and the Multiparty System in Russia’, RFE/RL Research Report, vol. 2, no. 31 (30 July 1993), pp. 7–15. On the impact of weak institutions on Russian foreign policy see Gebhardt Weiss, ‘Die Russische Föderation zwischen imperialer Versuchung und legitimer Interessenpolitik: Zur westlichen Kritik an der russischen Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik’, Berichte des Bundesinstituts für ostwissenschaftliche und internationale Studien, no. 23 (1995).
Besides a more assertive stance with respect to the ‘near abroad’, other changes in Russian foreign policy include the improvement of relations with Iraq, repeated attempts to protect Russia’s ‘historical ally’, Serbia, from international sanctions, a total opposition to the expansion of NATO membership eastwards into Central Europe, and explicit criticism of what is perceived as the United State’s tendency to dictate its own terms on the international arena. Suzanne Crow, ‘Russia Seeks Leadership in Regional Peacekeeping’, RFE/RL Research Report, vol. 2, no. 15 (1993), pp. 28–32; Goble, ‘Moscow’s New Politics Built on Sand’.
Cited in Lena Jonson, ‘The Foreign Policy Debate in Russia: In Search of a National Interest’, Nationalities Papers, vol. 22, no. 1 (1994), p. 190.
Paul Goble, ‘The Situation in Russia’, Implementation of the Helsinki Accords (October 1993). Briefing of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, Washington, DC.
See Dzintra Bungs, ‘Russia Agrees to Withdraw Troops from Latvia’, RFE/RL Research Report, vol. 3, no. 22 (3 June 1994), pp. 1–9; Stephen Foye, ‘Estonia-Russia Agreement: Russian Perspective’, RFE/RL Daily Report (27 July 1994).
See Saulius Girnus, ‘Reaching West While Eyeing Russia’, Transition, vol. 1, no. 1 (30 January 1995), p. 17.
See Saulius Girnius, ‘Relations With Russia Turn Bitter,’ Transition, 2, no. 11 (31 May 1996), pp. 42–45.
Dzintra Bungs, ‘Seeking Solutions to Baltic-Russian Border Issues’, RFE/RL Research Report, vol. 3, no. 13 (1 April 1994), pp. 25–32.
Russian concerns have been further intensified by the possibility of future reunification of Moldova with Romania, even though Moldova leaders have given little indication of an interest in unification. On Romanian criticism of Moldova’s policy see Dan Ionescu, ‘Straining Family Relations’, Transition, vol. 1, no. 7 (1995), pp. 6–8, 63.
Ustina Markus, ‘Conservatives Remove Belarusian Leader’, RFE/RL Research Report, vol. 3, no. 8 (25 February 1994), pp. 13–18.
See Ustina Markus, ‘Business as Usual with Lukashenka’, Transition, vol. 1, no. 8 (26 May 1995), pp. 57–61.
Ustina Markus, ‘Belarus a “Weak link” in Eastern Europe’, RFE/RL Research Report, vol. 2, no. 49 (10 December 1993), p. 24.
See Ustina Markus, ‘Toothless Treaty with Russia Sparks Controversy’, Transition, 2, no. 9 (3 May 1996), pp. 46–7.
Sergei Kiselyov, ‘Ukraine: Stuck with the Goods’, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (March 1993).
See Bohdan Nahaylo, ‘The Shaping of Ukrainian Attitudes toward Nuclear Arms’, RFE/RL Research Report, vol. 2, no. 8 (February 1993), p. 32.
See Dominique Arel and Andrew Wilson, ‘The Ukrainian Parliamentary Elections’, RFE/RL Research Report, vol. 3, no. 26 (1 July 1994), pp. 6–17.
Frank Umbach, ‘Russia and the Problems of Ukraine’s Cohesion: Results of a Fact-Finding Mission’, Berichte des Bundesinstituts für ostwissenschaftliche und internationale Studien, no. 13 (1994), p. 19.
See David Marples, ‘Ukraine after the Presidential Election’, RFE/RL Research Report, vol. 3, no. 31 (12 August 1994), pp. 7–10.
See, for example, Neil Melvin, Forging the New Russian Nation, Discussion Paper 50 (London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1994) and
Vladimir Shlapentokh, Munir Sendich, and Emil Payin (eds): The New Russian Diaspora: Russian Minorities in the Former Soviet Republics (Armonk, NY/London: M.E. Sharpe, 1994).
Bruce Porter and Carol Saivetz, ‘The Once and Future Empire: Russia and the “Near Abroad”’, The Washington Quarterly, vol. 17, no. 3 (1994), p. 89.
Cited in Suzanne Crow, ‘Russia Seeks Leadership in Regional Peacekeeping’, RFE/RL Research Report, vol. 2, no. 15 (1993), pp. 28–32. It should be noted, however, that neither the United Nations nor CSCE has granted the Russian Federation an official imprimatur to act as a regional peacekeeper.
See the contributions by noted Russian and Western analysts in Stepan Sestanovich (ed.), Rethinking Russia’s National Interests (Washington: Center for Strategic and International Studies, 1994).
Suzanne Crow, ‘Russia Asserts Its Strategic Agenda’, RFE/RL Research Report, vol. 2, no. 50 (17 December 1993), pp. 1–8.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1997 Roger E. Kanet and Alexander V. Kozhemiakin
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kozhemiakin, A.V., Kanet, R.E. (1997). Russia and its Western Neighbours in the ‘Near Abroad’. In: Kanet, R.E., Kozhemiakin, A.V. (eds) The Foreign Policy of the Russian Federation. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-25440-8_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-25440-8_2
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-25442-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-25440-8
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)