DOCSLIB.ORG

Working Papers 41 (2003)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Working Papers 41 (2003) A Hole in the Wall? Dimensionalism and the EU’s “New Neighbourhood Policy” Hiski Haukkala Researcher The Finnish Institute of International Affairs [email protected] http://www.hiskihaukkala.net Working Papers 41 (2003) Ulkopoliittinen instituutti (UPI) – The Finnish Institute of International Affairs (FIIA) The Finnish Institute of International Affairs (Ulkopoliittinen instituutti, FIIA) was established in 1961 on the initiative of the Paasikivi Society and it is an independent think tank maintained by the Foundation for Foreign Policy Research. FIIA’s mission is to produce high-standard, analytical information on international relations required in foreign policy decision-making and to assist in the formation of informed and critical public opinion. It accomplishes this mission by organizing research projects on timely topics, maintaining national and international research networks, and arranging lectures, seminars and conferences. Key research findings are published in the form of books and reports. FIIA also publishes Ulkopolitiikka, a quarterly review in Finnish, and The Yearbook of Finnish Foreign Policy, an annual publication in English. FIIA maintains a library which is at the disposal of anyone interested in international relations and foreign policy. The Finnish Institute of International Affairs Mannerheimintie 15 A FIN-00260 Helsinki tel. +358 9 4342 070 fax +358 9 4342 0769 http://www.upi-fiia.fi ISBN 951-769-145-9 ISSN 1456-1360 Ulkopoliittinen instituutti Helsinki 2003 Contents Introduction 1 The EU Enlargement as a Process of Inclusion and Exclusion 4 A Hole in the Wall? Dimensionalism and the EU’s Quest for Stability 11 Conclusions 19 Introduction1 The successive rounds of enlargements are a factor shaping the European Union. The previous enlargements have all resulted in the broadening of the EU’s agenda, changes in the institutions and decision-making, as well as shaping the way in which the world external to the Union has perceived the European integration and its different manifestations, be they institutions or policies. 2 There is dialectic at work, where the “shadow of enlargement” forces the European Union and its member states to adapt its own dynamic to meet the changing circumstances. This adaptation – together with the growing geographic exposure to new neighbours and regions – in turn create an opening and a demand for further enlargements, which then start the dialectic anew. This dialectic applies also in the EU’s external relations. The point of contact where this is felt most urgently is, of course, at the current – and with the advent of the “Big Bang” enlargement in 2004 already in sight – at the future outer boundaries of the European Union.3 The countries emerging at the outskirts of the enlarging Union (the “new neighbours”) are always also potential future members. The logic of an empire is partly at work here. 1 This Working Paper was previously presented under the same title at the “The Baltic World as a Multicultural Space”, 5th Conference on Baltic Studies in Europe, Turku, on the 5th of June 2003. I want to thank all the participants for a lively and interesting debate in the session. 2 Hiski Haukkala ja Hanna Ojanen, “Ulko- ja turvallisuuspolitiikan haasteet”, in Tapio Raunio and Teija Tiilikainen, eds, Euroopan rajat: Laajentuva Euroopan unioni (Helsinki: Gaudeamus, 2002), p. 204. 3 The Copenhagen European Council in December 2002 decided on the accession of ten new members: Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovak Republic, and Slovenia. 1 But the EU is a reluctant empire, ever aware of the dangers posed by the entry of newcomers into the club. Nevertheless the new neighbours require a response from the Union. This calls for new relationships and policies on the part of the EU. In the past they have varied from treating the new neighbours as potential EU candidates and engaging with them through the accession process, to offering different “partnerships” which have often been spiced with the element of a prospective free trade area with the European Union. But in the future the EU’s new neighbours will increasingly fall into the category of countries that the EU cannot, or does not want to, integrate (or, as in the case of Russia, are themselves unwilling to be integrated). This is reflected in the emergence of different “dimensions” at the outer edges of EU-Europe. It is important to note, that this dimensionalism is a by-product of the successive rounds of EU enlargements. The emergence of new dimensions is in a sense an (unintended?) external manifestation of the limits of expanding what is basically an internal process of the Union. At times it seems that it is also an unwanted phenomenon for the Union. Therefore, and especially in the light of the current, fifth round of EU enlargement, it is clear that the dimensionalization is a form of exclusion. You become a partner in a given dimension if you are not entitled to become a member of the Union itself. 4 4 Previously the picture has not been as clear-cut as this. The Northern Dimension departed from the notion that one of its tasks was to “facilitate EU enlargement” to the Central and Eastern European Countries (CEEC). After the decisions taken in Copenhagen, however, it is clear that also the Northern Dimension will lose its role as an avenue towards closer institutional association with the Union. The “southern” and the newly emerging “eastern” dimensions have of course no pretensions of offering membership to its partners. 2 The aim of this paper is twofold. First it analyses the limits of enlarging the Union. To put it bluntly, for its members the European integration is meaningful as a process only as long as it is built on a demarcation of the internal from the external to the project. Often this fact is put to words in the form that it is the integrity of the Community legislation, the acquis communautaire, and the viability of common institutions that have to be preserved, and it is because of this that the European project cannot keep on enlarging indefinitely. For the Union, the stakes are high. To quote the President of the European Commission Romano Prodi, “we cannot go on enlarging forever. We cannot water down the European political project and turn the European Union into just a free trade area on a continental scale.”5 But even if Mr. Prodi has it right, and the European integration has its own internal imperatives for setting the limits to its territorial enlargement, the Union cannot escape the fact that the new neighbours are subjecting Union and its policies with demands for belonging as well as for assistance and support from the Union. And therein lays another, this time an external imperative for the Union: the need to ensure stability on the wider European continent. 6 Therefore, and as its second task, the paper takes also a look at one of the dimensions, the Northern Dimension (ND), in order to find out whether, and under what criteria, the new dimensionalism at the outskirts of the Union can be seen as an answer to the external challenges and demands that the EU will be facing in the aftermath of its “Big Bang” enlargement in 5 Romano Prodi, A Wider Europe – A Proximity Policy as the key to stability. A speech at the “Peace, Security and Stability – International Dialogue and the Role of the EU” Sixth ECSA-World Conference, Brussels, 5-6- December 2002. 6 Antonio Missiroli, “The EU and its Changing Neighbourhood: Stabilization, Integration and Partnership”, in Roland Dannreuther, ed., The European Union Foreign and Security Policy: Towards a Neighbourhood Strategy (forthcoming). 3 2004. Can it help the Union to preserve the stabilizing logic of enlargements even after the EU can no longer enlarge? The EU Enlargement as a Process of Inclusion and Exclusion The Cold War and its bipolar overlay served the western Europeans very well, for it meant that they could take the concept of “Europe” as their own property without having to bother to think about where the outer limits of European integration really lay. 7 This changed with the end of the Cold War, as the European Union was flooded with membership applications from the central and eastern European countries (CEECs). Although the EU’s initial reaction to the sea change in Europe was positive, and it was backed up with an offer of financial assistance in the form of the PHARE programme, full membership for the CEECs was not in the cards. At the time the EU had other priorities, such as the completion of its Single Market, negotiating the Treaty on European Union as well as responding to the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the violent break-up of Yugoslavia, and the Gulf War. 8 A decade later, the European Union and its member states have still not been able to decide where the ultimate boundaries of European integration actually lie. The decision by the Helsinki European Council of December 1999 to expand the group of negotiating countries to twelve (+ Turkey waiting in line) did not reflect a true strategic choice on the future 7 William Wallace, “From Twelve to Twenty-Four? The Challenges to the EC Posed by the Revolutions in Eastern Europe”, in Colin Crouch and David Marquand (eds), Towards Greater Europe? A Continent without an Iron Curtain (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1992), p. 34. 8 Graham Avery and Fraser Cameron, The Enlargement of the European Union (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), p. 15. 4 composition of the European Union. 9 Nor did the Copenhagen European Council’s decision in December 2002 on the accession of ten new members in 2004 solve the problem, either. This is because many “outsiders”, for example, the Balkan countries and Ukraine, are still pressing hard for eventual membership, whereas it is likely that one of the already accepted “insiders”, Turkey, is not likely to become a member very soon.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Transatlantic Partnership and Relations with Russia
    The Transatlantic Partnership and Relations with Russia Edited by Frances G. Burwell & Svante E. Cornell The Transatlantic Partnership and Relations with Russia Frances G. Burwell Svante E. Cornell Editors © 2012 Institute for Security and Development Policy and the Atlantic Council of the United States “The Transatlantic Partnership and Relations with Russia” is a monograph published by the Institute for Security and Development Policy in cooperation with the Atlantic Council of the United States. The Institute for Security and Development Policy is based in Stockholm, Sweden, and cooperates closely with research centers worldwide. Through its Silk Road Studies Program, the Institute also runs a joint Transatlantic Research and Policy Center with the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute of Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies. The Institute is firmly established as a leading research and policy center, serving a large and diverse community of analysts, scholars, policy-watchers, business leaders, and journalists. It is at the forefront of research on issues of conflict, security, and development. Through its applied research, publications, research cooperation, public lectures, and seminars, it functions as a focal point for academic, policy, and public discussion. Since its founding in 1961-1962, the Atlantic Council of the United States has been a preeminent, non partisan institution devoted to promoting transatlantic cooperation and international security. Now in its 50th year, the Atlantic Council is harnessing that history of transatlantic leadership and applying its founders’ vision to a broad spectrum of modern global challenges from violent extremism to financial instability and from NATO’s future to energy security. The Council is home to ten programs and centers, broken down both functionally and regionally, which seamlessly work together to tackle today’s unique set of challenges.
    [Show full text]
  • On Thin Ice? (Mis)Interpreting Russian Policy in the High North Roderick Kefferpütz
    No. 205/February 2010 On Thin Ice? (Mis)interpreting Russian Policy in the High North Roderick Kefferpütz limate change in the Arctic is expected to make the ice cap dwindling to a record-low minimum extent the region a lot busier as new strategic of 4.3 million square km in September 2007.2 resources become available. The Russian C These developments open up an array of intractable Federation is a key player in this context, having put challenges, including threats to biodiversity and the forth a comprehensive Arctic strategy. Russian policy traditional way of life of autochthon communities in towards the so-called High North, however, is the Arctic region. Of particular danger to global oftentimes not seen in its entirety and has received a environmental stability, however, is the threat to low- plethora of criticism in the Western media and foreign lying coastal regions posed by rising sea levels. This policy community. This paper aims to contribute to a would not only have immense political, environmental better understanding of Russian actions in the High and social consequences; the economic effects would North by providing a succinct overview of Russian also be tremendous. According to Allianz financial policies in the region and identifying the fundamental services, a rise of half a metre by the middle of this rationale behind them. The paper concludes that century could put at risk more than 28 trillion dollars’ Russia’s Arctic policy is not only a lot more nuanced worth of assets in the world’s largest coastal cities.3 In but also not very different from the policies conducted addition, increasing temperatures in this volatile region by other riparian states.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2006 101 Staff List 2006 (Staff Who Left in 2006 Are Listed in Grey Italics)
    Annual ReportAnnual 2006 PRIO Annual Report 2006 101 Staff List 2006 (Staff who left in 2006 are listed in grey italics) Director Sabrina Ramet Doreen Kuse Information Stein Tønnesson Gregory Reichberg Bethany Lacina Knut Sindre Åbjørsbråten Jan Ketil Rød Eric Neumayer Agnete Schjønsby Research Staff Øystein H. Rolandsen Magnus Öberg Martin Austvoll Kaushik Roy Marcelo Ochoa Editorial Staff Pavel Baev Sven Gunnar Simonsen Taylor Owen John Carville Morten Bergsmo Inger Skjelsbæk Roger Petersen Glenn Martin Helga Malmin Binningsbø Endre Stiansen James Pugel Marit Moe Kaja Borchgrevink Håvard Strand Rebecca Roberts Naima Mouhleb Marit Brochmann Trude Strand Bruce Russett Halvard Buhaug Kaare Strøm Klaus Schmidt-Hebbel Library J. Peter Burgess Henrik Syse Astrid Suhrke Olga Baeva Jørgen Carling Pinar Tank Jennifer Ziemke Odvar Leine Jeffrey Checkel Anne Thurin Indra de Soysa Torunn Tryggestad Administration Kendra Dupuy Ola Tunander Visiting Scholars Lars Even Andersen Jon Elster Henrik Urdal Vera Achvarina Lene Kristin Borg Scott Gates (CSCW Director) Hilde Henriksen Waage Trond Bakkevig Kai Robert Braaten Camilla Gjerde Hanne Fjelde Eystein Emberland Kristian Skrede Gleditsch Advisers Stein Erik Horjen Andrew Feltham Nils Petter Gleditsch Joachim Carlsen Pablo Kalmanovitz Damian Laws Kristian Berg Harpviken Ingeborg Haavardsson Kristoffer Lidén Svein Normann Wenche Hauge Gina Lende Nihara Ranjan Nayak Lorna Quilario Sandberg Håvard Hegre Maria Victoria Perotti Martha Snodgrass Helga Hernes Research Assistants Paul Roe Matilde Perez Herranz
    [Show full text]
  • Russia in East Central Europe: Means of Pressure and Channels Of
    Pavel Baev F Russia in East Central Europe: Means of Pressure and Channels of Influence* June 2016 *With the support of DGRIS (Directorate General for International Relations and Strategy), French Ministry of Defence, under “Observatoire Russie, Europe orientale et Caucase” Table of Contents oui pour alignement justifié INTRODUCTION ...................................................... 4 NEW GEOPOLITICS OF THE “FRONTLINE ZONE” WITH RUSSIA ................................................................. 6 RUSSIAN ENERGY POLICY IN ECE: A BROKEN TOOL? .... 9 Gazprom’s pipelines, prices and promises ............... 9 Nuclear energy track ............................................... 11 RUSSIAN EXPORT OF CORRUPTION AS A POLICY INSTRUMENT ........................................................ 14 From buying friends to cultivating malcontents ...... 14 The art of propaganda war ...................................... 17 RUSSIAN “HARD SECURITY” DESIGNS FOR EAST CENTRAL EUROPE .................................................. 20 Experimenting with military pressure in the Baltic theater .................................................................... 20 Post-Crimea reconfiguration of the Black Sea theater .................................................................... 23 The nuclear threat and the missile defense irritant . 25 CONCLUSION: THE SHIFTING INTERPLAY OF DIRTY POLITICS AND MILITARY RISKS .............................. 28 Author Dr Pavel K. Baev is a Research Director and Professor at the Peace Research Institute, Oslo
    [Show full text]
  • The Search for Common Ground
    EURASIAN SECURITY The Search for Common Ground Policy Perspectives May 2011 IERES • THE INSTITUTE FOR EUROPEAN, RUSSIAN AND EURASIAN STUDIES PONARS Eurasia is a global network of social scientists that seeks to promote scholarly work and policy engagement on transnational and comparative topics within the Eurasian space. PONARS Eurasia is based at the Institute for European, Russian and Eurasian Studies (IERES) at The George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs. This publication was made possible by a grant from Carnegie Corporation of New York. The statements made and views expressed are solely the responsibility of the authors. Edited by Alexander Schmemann and Cory Welt PONARS Eurasia The Institute for European, Russian and Eurasian Studies (IERES) Elliott School of International Affairs The George Washington University 1957 E Street, NW, Suite 412 Washington, DC 20052 Tel: (202) 994-6340 www.ponarseurasia.org © PONARS Eurasia 2011. All rights reserved. Cover images: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivers a speech during the Caspian Sea leaders summit in Tehran, Iran (2007). (AP Photo/Vahid Salemi) U.S. Vice President Joe Biden gestures during his speech at Moscow State University (2011). He told the audience that Washington supports Russia's accession to the World Trade Organization. (AP Photo/Alexander Zemlianichenko) Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Tajik President Emomali Rakhmon listen to a facility officer while touring the Soviet-built Okno (Window) complex in Nurek, 30 miles southeast
    [Show full text]
  • Bios & Topics FRI PONARS Fri Sept 13 2019.Pdf
    PONARS Eurasia Annual Policy Conference BIOGRAPHIES & TOPICS Friday, September 13, 2019 Panel 1: Russia’s Soft/Sharp Power and the West (9:15 am) Chair: Marlene Laruelle, George Washington University Discussant: Ambassador Eric Rubin, American Foreign Service Association Kimberly Marten is Chair of the Political Science Department at Barnard College, Columbia University. She is a Faculty Member of Columbia’s Harriman Institute for Russian and East-Central European Studies and of the Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies. She is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the International Institute for Strategic Studies, and the Chicago Council on Global Affairs Foreign Policy Experts Panel. Her current research focuses on Russian foreign and security policy. Marten has analyzed Russia’s use of the Wagner Group private military company and its intelligence agencies and the politics of warlords. Her books include, Engaging the Enemy: Organization Theory and Soviet Military Innovation (Princeton, 1993), which received the Marshall Shulman Prize, Weapons, Culture, and Self-Interest: Soviet Defense Managers in the New Russia (Columbia, 1997), and Enforcing the Peace: Learning from the Imperial Past (Columbia, 2004). ► “Russ-Afrique? Russia, France, and the Central African Republic”—France has been among the European countries most friendly to Russia in recent years. Yet Moscow is targeting Paris for geopolitical competition in the Central African Republic, a violent, poverty-stricken country with ties to France where neither the USSR nor Russia ever played much of a role. What explains Russian actions? - - - - - - - - - - Şener Aktürk is Associate Professor at Koç University, Istanbul. He is a scholar of comparative politics with a focus on ethnicity, religion, and nationalism, especially in Germany, Russia, and Turkey.
    [Show full text]
  • Russian Nuclear Modernization and Putin's Wonder-Missiles: Real
    Notes de l’Ifri Russie.Nei.Visions 115 Russian Nuclear Modernization and Putin’s Wonder-Missiles Real Issues and False Posturing Pavel BAEV August 2019 Russia/NIS Center The Institut français des relations internationales (Ifri) is a research center and a forum for debate on major international political and economic issues. Headed by Thierry de Montbrial since its founding in 1979, Ifri is a non- governmental, non-profit organization. As an independent think tank, Ifri sets its own research agenda, publishing its findings regularly for a global audience. Taking an interdisciplinary approach, Ifri brings together political and economic decision-makers, researchers and internationally renowned experts to animate its debate and research activities. The opinions expressed in this text are the responsibility of the author alone. This text is published with the support of DGRIS (Directorate General for International Relations and Strategy, Ministry of the Armed Forces), under “Russia, Caucasus and Eastern Europe Observatory”. ISBN: 979-10-373-0011-9 © All rights reserved, Ifri, 2019 Cover: © Kremlin.ru How to quote this document: Pavel Baev, “Russian Nuclear Modernization and Putin’s Wonder-Missiles: Real Issues and False Posturing”, Russie.Nei.Visions, No. 115, Ifri, August 2019. Ifri 27 rue de la Procession 75740 Paris Cedex 15—FRANCE Tel.: +33 (0)1 40 61 60 00—Fax: +33 (0)1 40 61 60 60 Email: [email protected] Website: Ifri.org Russie.Nei.Visions Russie.Nei.Visions is an online collection dedicated to Russia and the other new independent states (Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan).
    [Show full text]
  • LITHUANIA PREPARES for HYBRID WAR by John R
    MARCH 2015 LITHUANIA PREPARES FOR HYBRID WAR By John R. Haines John R. Haines is a Senior Fellow of the Foreign Policy Research Institute and directs the Princeton Committee of FPRI. Much of his current research is focused on Russia and its near abroad, with a special interest in nationalist and separatist movements. The translation of all source material is by the author unless noted otherwise. The more powerful enemy can be vanquished...by the most thorough, careful, attentive, skillful, and obligatory use of any—even the smallest—rift between the enemies [...] and also by taking advantage of any, even the smallest, opportunity of winning a mass ally, even though this ally is temporary, vacillating, unstable, unreliable and conditional. Those who do not understand this reveal a failure to understand even the smallest grain of Marxism, of modern scientific socialism in general.1 -Vladimir Ilʹich Lenin, No Compromises? Mickiewicz or Mickevičius? For years, Lithuanian citizens of Polish origin have been asking for the right to keep their names in Polish spelling. Is it just a question of name? The situation of the national minorities in Lithuania has been discussed by world and regional organisations for already over ten years. And still it creates tensions between Vilnius and Warsaw.2 -Nouvelle Europe, The Polish national minority in Lithuania : three reports later. A few weeks ago, Pravda published a vitriolic denunciation of Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaitė: [Her] recent outburst of emotional anti-Russian rhetoric seems very odd given her biography. [...] The Soviet education system gave her the opportunity to graduate from the prestigious St.
    [Show full text]
  • Rising Tensions Between the West and Russia: What Role for Arms
    DECEMBER 2018 Rising Tensions Between Policy Brief the West and Russia: What Role For Arms Control? 1. Introduction 2. Geopolitical Posturing – From the Arctic to Peter van Ham Over the past few years, relations between the West and Russia have hit rock bottom the Middle East and have spiralled from a political dispute into military tensions. Clearly, this is both There are no indications that Russia intends undesirable and dangerous. If disputes to start military hostilities towards any were limited to the political realm, the EU member state, let alone the US. But risk of escalation would remain modest. this is where the “good news” ends. Last However, Moscow’s operations go beyond September, Russia conducted a large “set assertive cyber strategies and ham-fisted of manoeuvres”, allegedly involving 300,000 spying efforts. Today, Russia is engaged troops (although the estimate by reliable in (what Mark Galeotti has called) “heavy Western sources is lower, around 75,000 metal diplomacy”: using military means troops), including contingents from China to impress and intimidate the West.1 This and Mongolia.2 Russia’s Vostok (“East”) Policy Brief offers insight into the most exercise underscored Moscow’s growing pressing concerns, focusing on areas and military ambitions and its willingness to issues where matters could escalate fastest. work with China to shape a post-Western It asks what role can still be foreseen for world. One region where Russia’s military arms control and concludes with a call assertiveness is on the rise is the Arctic. for transatlantic unity and a stronger role Russia has reopened several Soviet-era for NATO to counter Russia’s military and bases in the Arctic, building new nuclear ice- geopolitical gambit.
    [Show full text]
  • Russia: Foreign Policy and U.S
    Russia: Foreign Policy and U.S. Relations Updated April 15, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R46761 SUMMARY R46761 Russia: Foreign Policy and U.S. Relations April 15, 2021 Since Russian President Vladimir Putin’s rise to leadership more than 20 years ago, tensions have increased steadily between Russia and the United States. Some observers attribute Russian Andrew S. Bowen foreign policy actions to the personality and individual interests of Putin and certain hawkish Analyst in Russian and advisers. Some contend Russian authorities are focused mainly on reclaiming Russia’s status as a European Affairs great power. Others argue Russian foreign policy is centered on protecting the country’s status as the dominant power in the post-Soviet region and defending against foreign interference in Russia’s domestic affairs. Whatever the motivations, most observers agree Russia’s natural Cory Welt resources and military modernization program, launched in 2008, provide Russia’s leadership the Specialist in Russian and European Affairs means to conduct a flexible and often aggressive foreign policy, as well as to project force in neighboring countries and further afield (such as in the Middle East). Russia’s foreign policy priorities traditionally have focused on the post-Soviet region and the West, including relations and tensions with NATO, the United States, and Europe. However, Russia under Putin (like the Soviet Union before it) also pursues a global foreign policy. As relations with its neighbors and Western countries have become more adversarial, Russia—seeking to balance against U.S. and European power and interests—has cultivated deeper relations with China and other countries.
    [Show full text]
  • Russia and Turkey: Strategic Partners and Rivals
    RUSSIE.NEI.REPORTS No.35 MAY 2021 Russia and Turkey Strategic Partners and Rivals Russia/NIS Center Pavel BAEV The French Institute of International Relations (Ifri) is a research center and a forum for debate on major international political and economic issues. Headed by Thierry de Montbrial since its founding in 1979, Ifri is a non-governmental, non-profit organization. As an independent think tank, Ifri sets its own research agenda, publishing its findings regularly for a global audience. Taking an interdisciplinary approach, Ifri brings together political and economic decision-makers, researchers and internationally renowned experts to animate its debate and research activities. The opinions expressed in this text are the responsibility of the author alone. This text is published with the support of DGRIS (Directorate General for International Relations and Strategy) under “Russia, Caucasus and Eastern Europe Observatory”. ISBN: 979-10-373-0351 © All rights reserved, Ifri, 2021 Cover: © Kremlin.ru How to quote this document: Pavel Baev, “Russia and Turkey. Strategic Partners and Rivals”, Russie.Nei.Reports, No. 35, Ifri, May 2021. Ifri 27 rue de la Procession 75740 Paris Cedex 15—FRANCE Tel.: +33 (0)1 40 61 60 00—Fax: +33 (0)1 40 61 60 60 Email: [email protected] Website: Ifri.org Russie.Nei.Reports Russie.Nei.Reports is an online collection dedicated to Russia and the other new independent states (Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan). Written by leading experts, these policy- oriented papers deal with strategic, political and economic issues. Author Dr Pavel K. Baev is a Research Professor at the Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO).
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of Russia's Counter-Terrorist Policy
    Notes de l’Ifri Russie.Nei.Visions 107 From Chechnya to Syria: The Evolution of Russia’s Counter-Terrorist Policy Pavel BAEV April 2018 Russia/NIS Center The Institut français des relations internationales (Ifri) is a research center and a forum for debate on major international political and economic issues. Headed by Thierry de Montbrial since its founding in 1979, Ifri is a non-governmental, non-profit organization. As an independent think tank, Ifri sets its own research agenda, publishing its findings regularly for a global audience. Taking an interdisciplinary approach, Ifri brings together political and economic decision-makers, researchers and internationally renowned experts to animate its debate and research activities. The opinions expressed in this text are the responsibility of the author alone. This text is published with the support of DGRIS (Directorate General for International Relations and Strategy) under “Russia, Caucasus and Eastern Europe Observatory”. ISBN: 978-2-36567-794-3 © All rights reserved, Ifri, 2018 How to quote this document: Pavel Baev, “From Chechnya to Syria: The Evolution of Russia’s Counter-Terrorist Policy”, Russie.Nei.Visions, No. 107, Ifri, April 2018. Ifri 27 rue de la Procession 75740 Paris Cedex 15—FRANCE Tel.: +33 (0)1 40 61 60 00—Fax : +33 (0)1 40 61 60 60 Email: [email protected] Website: Ifri.org Russie.Nei.Visions Russie.Nei.Visions is an online collection dedicated to Russia and the other new independent states (Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan). Written by leading experts, these policy-oriented papers deal with strategic, political and economic issues.
    [Show full text]