Negotiating the global security dilemma: Interpreting Russia’s security agenda

With the proliferation of discussion about global order change in recent years, and accompanying predictions about a greater role for non-Western great powers, or the so-called rising powers, in questions of global governance and security (Alexandroff and Cooper 2010; Ikenberry and Wright 2008; Young 2010; Schweller 2011; Gu et al. 2008; Drezner 2007; Ikenberry 2008), the field of Security Studies is increasingly acknowledging that it is no longer sufficient to examine questions of global security primarily or exclusively through the experience of the West. There is growing recognition that it is empirically necessary to take into account the positions, views and interests of these nonWestern powers in study of international affairs (Zakaria 2008; Glosny 2009; Kappell 2011; Layne 2009; Whitman 2010; Flemes 2011). In turn, theoretical models and concepts should also take into account the contexts and actors within non-Western contexts (Bilgin 2010). The aim of this chapter is to shed light on the way in which one such non-Western power, Russia, has sought to conceptualize and make sense of the global security agenda in the post-Cold War era. Within the extensive body of literature assessing the directions, interests and priorities of contemporary Russian security policy, a bias for positivist realist perspectives continues to exist (see Wegren 2003; Kanet 2005). Indeed, many scholars have sought to characterize the Putin regime as ideologically promoting a more aggressive and largely anti-Western position in global security matters (Blank 2002). However, the interpretivist framework adopted here departs from existing constructivist literature on Russia’s foreign and security policy, which tends to focus primarily on Russia’s identity politics as the driving factor behind the evolution of Russia’s view of itself and the world (see Neumann 2008; Morozov 2008; Tsygankov 2005, 2007; Lomagin 2007; Kassianova 2001; Hopf 2005; Clunan 2009). Instead, as already outlined in Chapter 1 of the book, rather than focusing primarily on concepts such as language, identity, culture or ideas, the interpretivist perspective used here centres primarily on recapturing actors’ beliefs and meanings within their own contexts, and on investigating the process by which ideas and beliefs evolve across time, through the notion of traditions and dilemmas and the principle of ‘situated agency’ (Bevir and Rhodes 2006; Bevir et al. 2013)

Russia's Security Policy under Putin A critical perspective

This book examines the evolution of Russia’s security policy under Putin in the 21st century, using a critical security studies approach. Drawing on critical approaches to security the book investigates the interrelationship between the internal-external nexus and the politics of (in)security and regime-building in Putin’s Russia. In so doing, it evaluates the way that this evolving relationship between state identities and security discourses framed the construction of individual security policies, and how, in turn, individual issues can impact on the meta-discourses of state and security agendas. To this end, the (de)securitisation discourses and practices towards the issue of Chechnya are examined as a case study. In so doing, this study has wider implications for how we read Russia as a security actor through an approach that emphasises the importance of taking into account its security culture, the interconnection between internal/external security priorities and the dramatic changes that have taken place in Russia’s conceptions of itself, national and security priorities and conceptualisation of key security issues, in this case Chechnya. These aspects of Russia’s security agenda remain somewhat of a neglected area of research, but, as argued in this book, offer structuring and framing implications for how we understand Russia’s position towards security issues, and perhaps those of rising powers more broadly. This book will be of much interest to students of Russian security, critical security studies and IR

‘The Loud Dissenter and its Cautious Partner' - Russia, China, global governance and humanitarian intervention

The global issue of humanitarian intervention has become more pronounced and complicated in recent years due to increasingly diverging views on addressing security crises between the West on one side and Russia and China on the other. Despite their support for the principles of ‘Responsibility to Protect' (R2P), both Russia and China are wary of Western intervention in internal conflicts after the Cold War and have become increasingly critical of Western-led armed intervention in humanitarian conflicts. Unease in Beijing and Moscow over the multilateral intervention in the 2011 Libyan conflict and their ongoing opposition to Western policies in the Syrian Civil War since 2011 would seem to point to ever more coincidence in their negative views of American and Western intervention policies. A conventional wisdom has thus emerged that there is something akin to a Sino-Russian ‘bloc', with near-identical policies of discouraging armed intervention within state borders under the aegis of humanitarian intervention or the R2P doctrine, signed in 2005 (2005 World Summit). However, closer examination of Russian and Chinese positions on the Libyan and Syrian conflicts, drawing on normative and identity perspectives, reveals significant differences in how both states address intervention in civil conflicts involving human rights emergencies. Indeed, the Libyan and Syrian cases suggest that the distance between the two states on ‘acceptable' policies toward international intervention in civil conflicts may actually be increasing. While Russia has assumed the role of the ‘loud dissenter' in global dialogs on humanitarian intervention, China has opted for the position of a ‘cautious partner

Common knowledge? Business intellectuals, BRIC and the production of knowledge across global finance and international relations

This article engages with the debate about how we come to know IR the way that we do. It seeks to contribute to this research agenda in two related ways. Firstly, it highlights the influence that a previously neglected circuit of practice has on the co-constituted knowledge relationship between global finance (GF) and International Relations (IR): the business intellectuals of cultural circuits of capital (CCC). Secondly, it argues that the science and technology studies’ concept of boundary objects is invaluable in accounting for both how IR’s ‘constitutive’ theorising is influenced by other circuits of practice and the co-constituted nature of ‘the international’ as an object of investigation. To exemplify both arguments, and how they relate to one another, the article traces the co-constituted operation of the concept of ‘BRIC’ (Brazil, Russia, India and China). Following the global financial crisis in 2007/2008, CCC popularised the concept of ‘BRIC’, which then came to operate as a boundary object between IR and GF and in the process impacted on how IR knows ‘rising powers’ and ‘global governance’. Thus, the functionality of BRIC as a boundary object served to provide business intellectuals with constitutive influence on how IR knows its object of study

HIV envelope tail truncation confers resistance to SERINC5 restriction

SERINCs and IFITMs are potent lentiviral restriction factors that inhibit infection by blocking viral entry into cells. Specifically, SERINCs inhibit viral fusion by targeting the envelope glycoprotein (Env) by a mechanism that remains incompletely understood. Here, we report that truncation of the Env cytoplasmic tail (CT) of HIV-1 and HIV-2 confers complete resistance to SERINC and IFITM restriction. Notably, while the EnvCT of HIV-1 is necessary for viral replication in T cells, HIV-2 does not require the EnvCT. Our data suggest a mechanism by which human lentiviruses can evade restriction that is mediated by the EnvCT but reveal key differences in the likely fitness cost imposed by this on pandemic HIV-1 and nonpandemic HIV-2

Atypical real estate objects: legal regime and control system

The legal concept of immovable things raises controversy in legal practice. Determining and understanding the definition of real estate, the complexity and diversity of these objects, a growing appearance of so-called atypical properties (such as sport stadiums, roads, boreholes), analyzing legislation and judicial practice of this field – all these issues call for a deep study of this topic. There is a conflicting arbitration practice, the subject of which is the learning of the legal nature of atypical real estate (for instance, asphalt playgrounds, car parks, fences, wells). The object of the research is the learning of the legal status of atypical real estate

When the Internal and External Collide: A Social Constructivist Reading of Russia's Security Policy

This study investigates the evolution of Russia’s internal and external security priorities and state identity under President Putin through the prism of its narrative on the war on terror. Drawing on social constructivist theories of identity, security and narratives, it argues a change occurred from the regime conceptualising Russia as a weak state, which prioritised the internal security threats and the fight against terrorism in the early period, to a strong state, whose main security ‘Other’ was the West. As a result, the Russian leadership have relegated the fight against terrorism to an operational level and now emphasises the struggle to defend their strength from external pressure

The role of endocytic machinery during Vaccinia Virus egress and spread

During its egress, Vaccinia virus induces a series of events at the plasma membrane of infected cells that ultimately enhance the spread of infection. Immediately following fusion with the plasma membrane, the virus recruits the endocytic adaptor protein, AP-2 and clathrin in an A36-dependent manner. Clathrin recruitment acts to cluster the viral integral membrane protein, A36 underneath the virion to generate a robust signalling platform that recruits the adapters Nck and Grb2 downstream of phosphorylated tyrosines 112/132 respectively. This subsequently results in the recruitment of the WIP:N-WASP complex, which stimulates Arp2/3 complex dependent actin polymerization to propel the virus along the plasma membrane and onto neighbouring uninfected cells. In addition, the virus also promotes Arp2/3 driven actin polymerization via recruitment and activation of the GTPase Cdc42, facilitating its interaction with N-WASP. The ability of the virus to activate Cdc42 is dependent on the RhoGEF Intersectin-1, which is also capable of interacting with AP-2. My studies have sought to investigate the molecular mechanism and role of AP-2 and clathrin recruitment during viral egress. I found that three highly conserved Asn-Pro-Phe (NPF) motifs at the C-terminus of A36 interact directly with the Eps15 Homology (EH) domains of intersectin-1 and Eps-15. A recombinant virus lacking all three NPF motifs (∆NPF) is unable to recruit clathrin, AP-2 or intersectin-1. Besides changes in actin polymerization this virus also has defects in viral release and spread. NPF motifs are conserved endocytic interaction modules that a found in all eukaryotes, however A36 is the first viral protein containing functional NPF motifs to be identified to date