Journals / Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi / 2010 / Cilt: 65 - Sayı: 3

Phoenix: Foreign policy of Russian Federation

Zümrüdüanka: Rusya Federasyonu'nun dış politikası

Pages
189–236
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Due to this characteristic, it can be resembled to Phoenix that rose out of itsashes.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The main problematic of the present study is the foreign policy of the Russian Federation in post- Cold War era.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In some 20 yearspassed since the dissolution of the USSR, the Russian Federation has first faltered to a great extent and thenstarted to recover gradually.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Due to this characteristic, it can be resembled to Phoenix that rose out of itsashes.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The main problematic of the present study is the foreign policy of the Russian Federation in post- Cold War era. First of all, the factors that affect Russian foreign policy are discussed in detail. Then, theYeltsin era, in which the country went through a process of articulation to the international capitalist systemas a successor State of the USSR, is analysed. Finally, the following Putin era is scrutinized.The Russian Federation, being affected by the continuity powers of its prodecessor, the USSR, hasalso altered itself as a new State being articulated to the international system and thus undergone a dramatictransformation. This transformation has shown itself in the country’s foreign policy as well. In some 20 yearspassed since the dissolution of the USSR, the Russian Federation has first faltered to a great extent and thenstarted to recover gradually. Due to this characteristic, it can be resembled to Phoenix that rose out of itsashes.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın temel sorunsalı Soğuk Savaş sonrasında RF’nin dış politikasıdır. Öncelikle Rus dışpolitikasını belirleyen etkenler masaya yatırılmıştır. Ardından, SSCB’nin ardılı sıfatıyla uluslararası kapitalistsisteme eklemlenme sürecinin yaşandığı Yeltsin dönemi ele alınmıştır. Son olarak başkanlık süresi sona erenPutin dönemi mercek altına alınmıştır.RF, SSCB’nin ardılı sıfatıyla bu dönemden gelen süreklilik güçlerinden etkilenirken, uluslararasısisteme eklemlenen yeni bir devlet olarak kabuk değiştirmiş ve büyük bir dönüşüm yaşamıştır. Bu dönüşümdış politikasına da yansımıştır. SSCB’nin dağılmasının ardından geçen yirmi yıla yakın zaman içerisindeardılı olan RF önce büyük bir çöküntüyle sendelemiş, sonra toparlanmaya başlamıştır. Bu özelliğiyleküllerinden yeniden doğan anka kuşuna benzetilebilir.

🔖

Cite This Article

TELLAL, E. (2022). Phoenix: Foreign policy of Russian Federation. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, Cilt: 65 - Sayı: 3, 189–236. https://ajindex.com/articles/443065

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (20)

  1. Abdullaev, Nabi (2004), “Chechnya Ten Years Later,” Current History, 103/675: 332-336.
  2. Achcar, Gilbert (2001), “Stratejik Üçlü: ABD, Çin, Rusya.” Tarık Ali (der.), Evrenin Efendileri (İstanbul: OmYayınevi) (Çev.: Yavuz Alogan): 149-206.
  3. Ahrari (2001), “Iran, China, and Russia: The Emerging Anti-US Nexus?,” Security Dialogue, 32/4: 453-466.
  4. Akan, Selin (1998), “2000’e Doğru Rusya Federasyonu,” _____http://www.hun.edu.tr/~fpi/Books/ rusya1.html> (24.11.1998).
  5. Allison, Roy (2004), “Strategic Reassertion in Russia’s Central Asia Policy,” International Affairs, 80/2: 277-293.
  6. Arbatov, Alexei G. (1993), “Russia’s Foreign Policy Alternatives,” International Security, 18/2: 5- 43. Arbatov, Alexei G. (1994), “Russian Foreign Policy Priorities for the 1990s,” Teresa Pelton Johnson ve Steven E. Miller (eds.), Russian Security After the Cold War (Washington: Brassey’s): 1-41.
  7. Ataöv, Türkkaya (1993), “The 14th Army in Moldova,” Turkish Daily News (3 Kasım). Bachkatov, Nina (2003), “Rusya’nın Uluslararası Hesapları,” Le Monde Diplomatique (Türkçe), 15 Ocak-15 Şubat: 56-58.
  8. Bacon, Edwin / RENZ, Bettina (2003), “Return of the KGB?,” The World Today, 59/5: 26-27.
  9. Bacon, Edwin (2006), “Required to Register,” The World Today, 62/1: 24-25.
  10. Bahgat, Gawdat (2003), “The New Geopolitics of Oil: The United States, Saudi Arabia, and Russia,” Orbis, 47/3: 447-461.
  11. Baranovsky, Vladimir (2000), “Russia: a Part of Europe or Apart from Europe,” International Affairs, 76/3: 443-458.
  12. Bedirhanoğlu, Pınar (2002), “Rusya’da Kapitalist Dönüşüm Süreci Yolsuzluk ve Neoliberalizm,” Toplum ve Bilim, 92: 217-233.
  13. Beunderman, Mark (2006), “Poland Compares German-Russian Pipeline to Nazi-Soviet Pact,” _____http://euobserver.com/9/21486/?print=1> (04.05.2006).
  14. Blank, Stephen (2000), “Russia as Rouge Proliferator,” Orbis, 44/1: 91-107.
  15. Blank, Stephen (2002), “The Conditions for U.S.-Russian Partnership,” Orbis, 46/4: 661-678.
  16. Blank, Stephen (2006), The NATO-Russia Partnership: A Marriage of Convenience or a Troubled Relationship?, _____http://www.StrategicStudiesInstitute.army.mil/> (12.9.2007).
  17. Bowker, Mike (1997), Russian Foreign Policy and the End of the Cold War (Aldershot: Darthmouth). Browning, C. S. ve P. Joenniemi (2004), “Kaliningrad’ın Kimlik Arayışı: Nereye Ait Olmak?,” Erhan Büyükakıncı (der.), Değişen Dünyada Rusya ve Ukrayna (Ankara: Phoneix) (Çev.: Erden Göktepe): 231-263.
  18. Buszynski, Leszek (2004), “Russia and the CIS in 2003,”
  19. Asian Survey, XLIV/1: 158-167.
  20. Chossudovsky, Michel (2007),