Putin's strategy: stabilization through subordination to the US

La posició de Rússia en el món ve determinada per les seves relacions amb els Estats Units. Després de la seva derrota a la guerra freda, tant els demòcrates com els comunistes esperen alguna forma de paritat, però els Estats Units no havien derrotat Rússia per concedir la paritat. Els Estats Units es van retirar unilateralment del Tractat ABMel 2001, l'inici de les negociacions va perdre el seu sentit, l'OTAN s'ha expandit gradualment malgrat les objeccions de Rússia i Rússia ha acceptat les bases dels Estats Units a l'Àsia Central. Rússia pot buscar consol en el fet que el NMD no és tecnològicament convincent, que l'OTAN és massa feble per a l'acció—Rússia també forma part de l'OTAN—, en l'eliminació de l'amenaça terrorista talibana i en l'absència d'un enfrontament directe amb els Estats Units. Per tal de protegir-se de les amenaces com la insurgència txetxena, Rússia ha fixat la seva atenció a reformar l'exèrcit i en la capacitat convencional. Avui els tractes de Rússia amb Líbia, l'Iraq, l'Iran i Corea del Nord tenen més a veure amb càlculs comercials que no pas amb desafiaments als Estats Units. Les seves relacions especials amb la Xina i l'Índia—que són realment independents dels Estats Units—també tenen motius comercials, com ara la venda d'armes a gran escala, i no motius estratègics, tot i que aquests últims sempre es mantenen a la reserva per si són necessaris.Russia’s position in the world is determined by its relations with the US. After its defeat in the ColdWar, both democrats and communists hoped for some form of parity but the US had not defeated Russia to concede parity. The US unilaterally withdrew from the ABM Treaty in 2001, the START negotiations lost all meaning, NATO has steadily expanded despite Russia’s objections and Russia has accepted US bases in Central Asia. Russia can seek solace in the NMD not being technologically convincing, in NATO being too flabby for action (and Russia itself being a part of NATO), in the terrorist threat of the Taliban being eliminated, and in the absence of direct confrontation with the US. In order to ward off threats like the Chechen insurgency, Russia has turned its attention to reforming the army and to conventional capability. Today, Russia’s dealings with Libya, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea have more to do with commercial calculations than challenges to the US. Its special relationships with China and India – that are genuinely independent of the US – are likewise driven by commercial issues, such as large scale arms sales, rather than strategic considerations, although the latter are always kept in reserve should they be needed

Russia in theTwenty-first Century

Russia’s position in the world is determined by her relations with the US, with both the Democrats and the Communists expecting some form of parity. But the US has not defeated Russia in the Cold War to concede parity. The US unilaterally withdrew from the ABM Treaty in 2001; the START negotiations have lost meaning; NATO has been steadily expanded over Russian objections; and Russia has accepted US bases in Central Asia. Russia can seek solace in the NMD not yet being technologically convincing, in NATO being too flabby for action and Russia herself being a part of NATO, in the terrorist threat of the Taliban being eliminated, and in the absence of direct confrontation with the US. Therefore Russia has turned her attention to conventional capability to beat off threats like the Chechen insurgency and to reforming the army. Russia’s dealing with Libya, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea have more to do with commercial calculations than challenges to the US. Her special relationships with China and India, the ones that are genuinely independent of US, are likewise driven by the commercial issue of large scale arms sales rather than strategic considerations, although the latter are always kept in view in case they have to be activated

From Moscow with love

One of the less researched aspects of postcolonial India’s “progressive” culture is its Soviet connection. Starting in the 1950s and consolidating in the 1960s, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics invested in building up “committed” networks amongst writers, directors, actors, and other theater- and film-practitioners across India. Thus, an entire generation of cultural professionals was initiated into the anticolonial solidarity of emerging Afro-Asian nations that were seen, and portrayed, by the Soviets as being victims of “Western” imperialism. The aspirational figure of the New Soviet Man was celebrated through the rise of a new form of “transactional sociality” (Westlund 2003). This paper looks at selected cases of cultural diplomacy—through the lens of cultural history—between the USSR and India for two decades after India’s Independence, exploring the possibility of theorizing it from the perspective of an anticolonial cultural solidarity that allowed agency to Indian interlocutors

History of civilizations of Central Asia, v. 6: Towards the contemporary period: from the mid-nineteenth to the end of the twentieth century

The historical relationship existing between nomadic and sedentary peoples, living in quite different environments – steppes and oases – played a key part in shaping the cultural diversity of Central Asia and made an important contribution to its originality. To what extent and in what ways did the same influences affect different societies and fulfil different functions in extremely varied environments? In this work, we find numerous examples of diverse cultures living together, distinguishable but nevertheless sharing a common heritage. Therefore, this work strongly attests that each and every culture has made its own distinct contribution to the common heritage of humankind, as recalled in the words of the great Iranian poet and philosopher Saadi Shirazi several hundred years ago: ‘All human beings are like organs of a body; when one organ is afflicted with pain, others cannot rest in peace.’ The History of Civilizations of Central Asia illustrates perfectly the wealth of diversity and the foundation it provides of a shared future. Today, we are faced with a new challenge: to make of that diversity an instrument for dialogue and mutual understanding