DOCSLIB.ORG

Estonia External Relations Briefing: in Search for a Unified Foreign Policy: Just About Time to Do It… E-MAP Foundation MTÜ

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Estonia External Relations Briefing: in Search for a Unified Foreign Policy: Just About Time to Do It… E-MAP Foundation MTÜ ISSN: 2560-1601 Vol. 25, No. 4 (EE) Jan 2020 Estonia external relations briefing: In search for a unified foreign policy: just about time to do it… E-MAP Foundation MTÜ 1052 Budapest Petőfi Sándor utca 11. +36 1 5858 690 Kiadó: Kína-KKE Intézet Nonprofit Kft. [email protected] Szerkesztésért felelős személy: Chen Xin Kiadásért felelős személy: Huang Ping china-cee.eu 2017/01 In search for a unified foreign policy: just about time to do it… There is a certain logic of starting this briefing where the previous one was finished off: it is too good to be left out, since a particular argument needs to be made. From 1 January 2020 and for the first time in the country’s history, the Republic of Estonia joined a super-exclusive group of the UN Security Council members – it was done on the non-permanent basis, but not too worry. Not many people will dispute the fact that the UN is a direct ‘product’ of Yalta-45, which, during its existence as the core element of the post-WWII international system, was arguably not capable to be preventing a great deal of brutal invasions, aggressions, and genocides. At the same time, the UN is still the only global diplomatic platform where a serious problem of international significance can be, at least, discussed. Having become an integral part of the UN’s main executive body, Estonia, no doubts, will be doing its utmost best to be remembered as an exceptional performer. Indeed, repeating after a representative of the country to the UN, Estonia “will use all of [its] know-how and allied relations to cover the topics that matter to [it]”, and it is very much understandable that “[e]very foreign policy move, every vote or statement can affect how countries see and feel about Estonia”1. In the context of foreign policy, however, there is something that Estonia might need to commence fixing as soon as possible. As it was evidently argued by Toomas Sildam, a high-profile local reporter, there are noticeable traces of a few major foreign policy directions declared in the country, and those are making the process extremely confusing not only for the outsiders, but also for intra-Estonian dialogues to be clear and effective. Having attentively listened to a high number of speeches delivered during the numerous celebratory events on the occasion of the Treaty of Tartu’s centennial (predominantly, within the first week of February 2020, but also before), Sildam noted that “one might be tempted to ask how many foreign policies does Estonia have and who are the people who shape them”2. Without any reasonable doubts, the occasion was truly great to generate a discussion of the same magnitude – the Treaty of Tartu is a ‘jewel’ in the field of conventional diplomacy, and, in accordance to the document, the Soviet Russia under the Lenin-led Bolshevik Government recognised the Republic of Estonia and its sovereignty over a certain territory. For both 1 Gert Auväärt in Margus Parts, ‘Estonia has know-how to share with the world’, Postimees, 6 January 2020. Available from [https://news.postimees.ee/6865342/estonia-has-know-how-to-share-with-the-world]. 2 Toomas Sildam, ‘Once more, how many foreign policies does Estonia have?’ in ERR, 6 February 2020. Available from [https://news.err.ee/1032178/toomas-sildam-once-more-how-many-foreign-policies-does-estonia-have]. 1 countries, it became the first diplomatic recognition, and Estonia was naturally ‘over the moon’, thinking that the same status quo will be forever. Unfortunately, Russia was not on the same page with the Estonian side, and the occupation of the Baltics proceeded in 1940, forcefully ‘converting’ Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania into another lot of ‘titular’ republics of the USSR. On the top of that, in 1944, a significant part of Estonia (including the sizeable towns of Jaanilinn and Petseri) was brutally detached from it to be ‘added’ to the Russian Federation where these areas are situated now. Speculatively speaking, for some powerful countries that are very much into historic documents and treaties (China or Japan, for example), an equivalent of the Treaty of Tartu would have become the treaty to remember for centuries to come. Estonia does not have the same geo- strategic leverage, which the aforementioned two Asian giants can easily exhibit. After all, Russia had to be softening its approach in regards of the locality that Japan understands as its own ‘northern territories’, and China also managed to regain control of 4.7-square-kilometers of land, which was previously ceded to Russia in the aftermath of the Second Opium War. But what should Estonia do? Toomas Sildam picked up the following three major lines on the issue, correspondingly represented by the country’s President, the Speaker of the Riigikogu, and the Estonian Government. Visiting Tartu on the Treaty’s anniversary day, President Kersti Kaljulaid delivered a passionate speech, stating that the celebrated document “symbolises the achievement of a great miracle […] that most people could not have imagined until a few years ago […] [–] [t]he Estonian nation had won, successfully defending its freedom in a bloody war against a most powerful enemy”3. At the same time, the President seemingly felt that she would not need to take herself out from the debate on how to understand the Treaty’s legacy today, and she clearly expressed her opinion on the issue: The Tartu Peace Treaty not only formalised the victory both legally and diplomatically, but it also laid the foundations for the wider recognition of Estonia as an independent and sovereign state. Our country became a subject of international relations instead of an object. […] And [the Treaty] is valid. Estonia did not join the Soviet Union voluntarily. We were occupied. And we restored our independence on the basis of legal continuity. At the same time, 3 Kersti Kaljulaid in ‘President: Treaty of Tartu is the birth certificate of the Estonian state’, ERR, 3 February 2020. Available from [https://news.err.ee/1030865/president-treaty-of-tartu-is-the-birth-certificate-of-the-estonian- state]. 2 we must respect the international consensus on refraining from any further redrawing of the post-war borders in Europe. Arguments to the contrary only create unnecessary confusion.4 If one attempts to convert the abovementioned presidential expression into a policy, – for example, the way Toomas Sildam did, – it will end up with an understanding that the previously specified areas in and around Jaanilinn and Petseri should be remaining in the Russian Federation, and “Estonia should not bother trying to reclaim them”5. There is, however, a diametrically different opinion on the issue, and, in its most explicit from, it is associated with Henn Põlluaas (EKRE), the Riigikogu’s President (or, sometimes, he is also called as Speaker). Openly contesting the official position of Russia that the Treaty of Tartu is a document that belongs to history, Põlluaas stated the following: Hats off to all who fought bravely for our freedom both on the fronts of the War of Independence and at the negotiating table. […] May they be an example to us, because today, too, we must have the same ideals and commitment. All that we do must be done for the good of our fatherland. […] Both the 1932 Non-aggression Pact between Estonia and the Soviet Union, and the military bases agreement of 1939 directly refer to the Tartu Peace Treaty. No period of validity or terms of withdrawal have been provided for in this Peace Treaty. […] International law says that the Tartu Peace Treaty is valid also now, in the 21st century.6 Essentially, as it was commented on the Speaker’s message, the idea he expressed is very simple – the Republic of Estonia does not really need any new border agreement with Russia if the document effectively negates the Treaty of Tartu7. Characteristically, Henn Põlluaas is not alone in challenging the Kremlin’s view on what happened to Estonia in 1940. This is where he is very much on the same page with the President, the Government, and vast majority of the Estonian society. In a way, objectively, it is justifiably difficult to agree with Maria Zakharova, the Director of the Information and Press Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, that “[t]he Tartu treaty has long belonged to history […] [and] [i]ts action, as well as other international agreements, which had existed, including with Soviet Russia in the period of 1920-1940, ceased on Aug. 6 1940, after entering into the structure of the Soviet 4 Kaljulaid. 5 Sildam. 6 Henn Põlluaas in ‘President of the Riigikogu Henn Põlluaas: Tartu Peace Treaty is the symbol of continuity’, Riigikogu, 2 February 2020. Available from [https://www.riigikogu.ee/en/press-releases/board-of-the- riigikogu/president-riigikogu-henn-polluaas-tartu-peace-treaty-symbol-continuity/]. 7 Sildam. 3 Union”8. Consequently, for the Russian side, their understanding is based on the argument that “Estonia is a new country formed after the dissolution of the Soviet Union – unlike Russia that is the Soviet Union's successor”9, but, one could easily counterargue, it is the other way around. Getting back to Henn Põlluaas, what is really the main distinguishing feature of the Riigikogu Speaker’s position, however, is that he is seemingly prepared to go all the way in defending the rights for Estonia to claim the annexed areas back. Absolutely, considering the high-profile status of the Speaker, it represents a different stream in the context of foreign policy making. What about the Government? In May 2019, Prime Minister Jüri Ratas (Centre) was quoted recommending to exercise “a bit of realpolitik in the matter”10.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Another Espionage Scandal in the Relations Between Bulgaria and Russia Evgeniy Kandilarov
    ISSN: 2560-1601 Vol. 38, No. 4 (BG) March 2021 Bulgaria external relations briefing: Another Espionage Scandal in the Relations between Bulgaria and Russia Evgeniy Kandilarov 1052 Budapest Petőfi Sándor utca 11. +36 1 5858 690 Kiadó: Kína-KKE Intézet Nonprofit Kft. [email protected] Szerkesztésért felelős személy: CHen Xin Kiadásért felelős személy: Huang Ping china-cee.eu 2017/01 Another Espionage Scandal in the Relations between Bulgaria and Russia Summary Following the arrest in Bulgaria of six people on suspicion of espionage, Bulgarian foreign ministry has declared two senior Russian diplomats a persona non grata and gave them 72 hours to leave, the country. Although the announcement does not state a link between the events, the expulsions directly follow a major intelligence operation on March 19, when a network of local spies, some of them members of the Ministry of Defense, was uncovered after months of investigations. Sofia has now expelled eight Russian diplomats, including a military attache, over suspected spying since October 2019, putting a strain on historically close ties between Moscow. In 2020 Bulgaria has declared Russian citizens accused of espionage persona non grata four times and at the beginning of 2021 two more Russian diplomats were ordered to leave in accusations of espionage as well. All these diplomatic scandals are gradually escalating and leading to growing tensions between Bulgaria and Russia, at least on a public level. This is happening entirely in the spirit of the deepening European anti-Russian public campaign. This process is also a function of the growing tensions in US-Russian relations, clearly visible in the aggressive rhetoric of the new US president.
    [Show full text]
  • Global Deaths Move Past 3M As Virus Lingers
    12 | Monday, April 19, 2021 HONG KONG EDITION | CHINA DAILY WORLD UN expert Global deaths tears into BBC on bias move past 3m over rights By LIA ZHU in San Francisco as virus lingers [email protected] An expert has castigated the BBC for framing a television Despite jabs, lockdowns still a weapon interview with him on alleged amid resurgence, especially in S. Asia human rights abuses by China while ignoring human rights vio- lations by the United States at PARIS — The global COVID-19 home and abroad. death toll passed 3 million on Sat- Jeffrey Sachs, director of the urday as the pandemic speeds up Center for Sustainable Develop- despite vaccination campaigns, Countries with the ment at Columbia University and leading countries such as India to highest incomes are president of the United Nations impose new lockdowns to fight Sustainable Development Solu- spiraling infection numbers. getting vaccinated Representatives of parties to the Joint Commission of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action meet in tions Network, said in the inter- It was the latest grim milestone 25 times faster than Vienna, Austria, on Saturday. PROVIDED BY EU DELEGATION IN VIENNA view that he had expected to talk since the novel coronavirus began about climate change but instead to infect more than 139 million those with the was asked to discuss China’s people, leaving billions more lowest.” human rights. under crippling lockdowns and In her opening question, Emma ravaging the global economy. Clara Ferreira Marques, China urges haste on lifting Iran sanctions Barnett, presenter of the program An average of more than 12,000 a columnist for Bloomberg Newsnight, asked whether the deaths were recorded globally VIENNA — A Chinese envoy on the “proximity talks” with the Unit- expressed determination to contin- approach of the administration of every day in the past week, shoot- Saturday urged all parties to a ed States, Wang said.
    [Show full text]
  • Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's Interview with the RBC Media
    EMBASSY OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION IN THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE 51 Nassim Road, Singapore 258439 Tel: (65) 6235 1832; (65) 6235 1834; Fax: (65) 6733 4780 [email protected]; [email protected] www.singapore.mid.ru PRESS-RELEASE Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with the RBC media holding on current international issues (Moscow, May 15, 2020) Question: The coronavirus pandemic has already closed many countries. Do you think the world will be again as open and mobile as it was before the pandemic? Sergey Lavrov: Many discussions are being held on this issue today. Indeed, many COVID-19 response measures are being taken at random because nobody knows for sure how to effectively counter this infection. Decisions are made in response to immediate epidemiological challenges. These measures are seriously restricting the usual life of states, societies, every individual and every family. We couldn’t even imagine that we would need a special pass to leave our homes, our flats. But experts are assuring us that these measures are helping curb the spread of the pandemic. Many countries have shut entry and exit. We have also taken such decisions. Exceptions are made for Russian citizens and their families who happened to be abroad and want to return home, foreign diplomats and those who provide cargo shipments by ground, air, railway and vehicle transport. But foreign travel is banned for the majority of people. This is not just our idea. The majority of states are doing the same. Now these restrictions will be gradually lifted depending on the developments in various countries.
    [Show full text]
  • Kremlin Rewriting World War II History | American Foreign Policy Council
    Kremlin rewriting World War II history August 13, 2019 Herman Pirchner, Jr. Washington Times Related Categories: Democracy and Governance; Europe Military; Human Rights and Humanitarian Issues; Europe; Russia Sept. 1 marks the 80th anniversary of Nazi Germany’s invasion of Poland — an event that heralded the beginning of World War II. Two years later, the United States entered the war as an ally of both Great Britain and the Soviet Union. By that time, France and numerous other European nations were effectively under Nazi control. Thousands of speeches will doubtless be given around the world to commemorate the anniversary. Many of them will inevitably stress how the Soviets fought bravely against Germans, suffering over 20 million casualties in the process. Indeed, that tragedy should never be forgotten. Neither, however, should we allow Moscow to whitewash its culpability in building up, and allying with, the Third Reich’s war machine. The Kremlin is already working to do just that. Back in May, on the 75th anniversary of “D-Day,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova endeavored to rewrite World War II history, disputing the significance of the Normandy landings that freed Western Europe from Nazi occupation. The historic Allied efforts, Ms. Zakharova claimed, did not impact the course of the war, which had already been “pre-determined” by the sacrifices of the Soviet Red Army. Such a telling does violence to history. It ignores or minimizes the massive amounts of military and humanitarian supplies that America sent to help the Russian war effort. Moreover, it positions the USSR as a historic moral bulwark against Nazi aggression — rather than as its instigator, at least in the conflict’s early stages.
    [Show full text]
  • Extending Russia Competing from Advantageous Ground
    Extending Russia Competing from Advantageous Ground James Dobbins, Raphael S. Cohen, Nathan Chandler, Bryan Frederick, Edward Geist, Paul DeLuca, Forrest E. Morgan, Howard J. Shatz, Brent Williams C O R P O R A T I O N For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR3063 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication. ISBN: 978-1-9774-0021-5 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2019 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Cover: Pete Soriano/Adobe Stock Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Preface This report documents research and analysis conducted as part of the RAND Corporation research project Extending Russia: Competing from Advantageous Ground, sponsored by the Army Quadrennial Defense Review Office, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff G-8, Headquarters, Department of the Army.
    [Show full text]
  • The Two-Sided Sword of Russian Propaganda
    The Two-Sided Sword of Russian Propaganda Global Populisms Conference March 1-2, 2019 Julia Davis, M.S. Russian Media Monitor, Featured Expert with the Atlantic Council’s Disinformation Portal Russia is wielding a robust panoply of weapons in its hybrid war against the West, targeting democratic ideals and propagating populist, illiberal points of view. The Kremlin is most interested in promoting populist parties and agendas in the West, in hopes they will boost the spread of nativist ideology, focusing inward and abandoning democratic values. At the same time, Putin’s Russia is looking outward, seeking to regain control over the post- Soviet space, while using economic incentives and business interests to exercise the undue influence over much of Europe. Western democracies present a challenge to Putin’s regime, since they oppose the Kremlin’s revanchist expansion, counteract its corruption and challenge the diminishing personal liberties in Russian society. Therefore, undermining Western values and disrupting democratic processes remain high on the list of the Kremlin’s most pressing priorities. The bifurcation of the Russian state-controlled media is quite telling in terms of its intent and designed impact. English-speaking media (RT, Sputnik) operates as the weapon of external information warfare against the West, while domestic coverage is designed to convince the local population that such conflict is in Russia’s national interests and is entirely unavoidable. At the intersection between the two paradigms lies the path to understanding the Kremlin’s domestic and foreign objectives. Russian politicians, government officials, the heads of state-controlled media organizations and influential experts openly admit that RT (formerly known as “Russia Today”) was created for the purpose of engaging in information warfare against the West.
    [Show full text]
  • Foreign Policy Lessons from Russian International Media Coverage of Venezuela Sean P
    KENNAN CABLE No. 43 l August 2019 Venezuela's President Nicolas Maduro addresses RT's U.S. viewers in an English-dubbed interview posted to YouTube. (Source: YouTube) Reading the RT Leaves: Foreign Policy Lessons from Russian International Media Coverage of Venezuela Sean P. Steiner and Sarah Oates While the crisis in Venezuela has not provoked Turmoil in Venezuela foreign military intervention, it remains a significant part of Russia’s war of words with the West. The late Hugo Chavez’s revolution in Venezuela is in This narrative is evident on RT, Russia’s foreign crisis. Declining oil prices compounded with economic broadcaster.1 RT, the former Russia Today, is a key mismanagement have created drastic food and component of Russia’s foreign media apparatus and medicine shortages and have sparked mass protests a critical foreign policy instrument. It can be difficult against Chavez successor Nicolas Maduro. Maduro to predict Russia’s actions abroad, but analysis won a second term as president in May 2018, but of RT’s English-language coverage of Venezuela the opposition-led National Assembly declared his provides important insights into its foreign policy. inauguration invalid over allegations of voter fraud and intimidation. The National Assembly appointed Juan KENNAN CABLE No. 43 l August 2019 Guaidó as interim president and the U.S., among other These poor investments make sense when nations, quickly recognized his appointment while considering the political capital Russia receives in levying increased economic sanctions on Maduro’s return. Demonstrating Russia’s status as a great officials and Venezuelan industries. Russia steadfastly power is one of Moscow’s key domestic and foreign supports Maduro’s government.
    [Show full text]
  • The Russiagate Hysteria: a Case of Severe Russophobia
    EMBASSY OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA THE RUSSIAGATE HYSTERIA: A CASE OF SEVERE RUSSOPHOBIA APRIL 18, 2019 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD 3 TIMELINE OF MAIN EVENTS 7 MAIN DIPLOMATIC ACTIONS BY THE EMBASSY 20 EXAMPLES OF BASELESS ACCUSATIONS BY MEDIA 27 EXAMPLES OF GROUNDLESS ACCUSATIONS BY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS 77 EXAMPLES OF GROUNDLESS ACCUSATIONS BY EXPERTS 89 DEBUNKING KEY CLAIMS OF “RUSSIGATE” 101 CONCLUSION 119 3 HYSTERIA "If American democracy is destroyed within the next generation, it will not be destroyed by the Russians or the Chinese but by ourselves, by the very means we use to defend it". Senator J. WILLIAM FULBRIGHT “American Militarism”, 1970, Epilogue “It is an attempt to lay the blame at someone else’s door. This is not our problem. The problem is in US politics… The other team lost. They are reluctant to acknowledge the mistake. It is easier to say, “We are not to blame, the Russians are to blame, they interfered in our election.” It reminds me of anti-Semitism: the Jews are to blame for everything. We know what such sentiments can lead to. They lead to nothing good. The thing to do is simply to work and think of how to get things right”. VLADIMIR PUTIN President of the Russian Federation, (in response to a question from American journalist Megyn Kelly at the plenary meeting of the St Petersburg International Economic Forum, June 2, 2017) 4 “I believe that this problem is rooted in the domestic developments in the United States. We are not enjoying the current developments, but we did not start it.
    [Show full text]
  • Age of Triangular Politicking
    CHINA- RUSSIA RELATIONS AGE OF TRIANGULAR POLITICKING YU BIN, WITTENBURG UNIVERSITY China and Russia found themselves entangled in two separate triangular dynamics with the US and India. Russia, however, found itself in a curiously pivotal position within the two geopolitical triangles: an “innocent” bystander in the Beijing-New Delhi-Moscow trio and a useful, delicate balancer in the Washington-Beijing duel. Between its strategic partner (China) and persistent yet unrequited courter (the Trump administration), Russia carefully played its cards from a position of strategic weakness. By end of summer, the US-China-Russia triangle made its way into the US 2020 presidential elections as presidential candidates played the “Russia” and “China” cards. No matter who wins the 2020 US election, the stakes are high for China and Russia. This article is extracted from Comparative Connections: A Triannual E-Journal of Bilateral Relations in the Indo-Pacific, Vol. 22, No. 2, September 2020. Preferred citation: Yu Bin, “China-Russia Relations: Age of Triangular Politicking” Comparative Connections, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp 129-140. CHINA- RUSSIA RELATIONS | SEPTEMBER 2020 129 While the coronavirus raged throughout international justice, multilateralism, peace, summer 2020, China and Russia found and development. themselves entangled in two separate triangular dynamics with the US and India. China faced off Putin thanked Xi for preserving the memory of with India along the long mountainous border, thousands of Soviet soldiers and volunteers that culminating in the June 15 deadly brawls. perished in China. According to Chinese Meanwhile, the “whole-of-government Ambassador Zhang Hanhui, the Soviet Union approach” of the Trump administration against was the only country to provide direct military China led to a near-freefall in bilateral relations, assistance to China in the early phase of China’s featuring the highly ideologized, militarized war with Japan.
    [Show full text]
  • Russian Discourse on Borders and Territorial Questions – Crimea As a Watershed?
    russian politics 4 (2019) 211-241 brill.com/rupo Russian Discourse on Borders and Territorial Questions – Crimea as a Watershed? Tuomas Forsberg Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies & Tampere University [email protected] Sirke Mäkinen Aleksanteri Institute, University of Helsinki [email protected] Abstract This article addresses the question of how the Crimean case relates to Russia’s general understanding of territorial questions and border regimes. We examine the histori- cal evolution of Russian discourse on borders and territorial questions and investigate to what extent they can explain Russia’s decision to annex Crimea. We will look into the principles of inviolability of borders and territorial integrity that sustain the status quo, and how this has been challenged by three partly interlinked doctrines: national self-determination, geopolitics, and historical rights. We argue that the discourse on territorial integrity and the status quo has predominated in Russia since the Cold War, and that this has not changed fundamentally, either before or after the annexation of Crimea. Russia does not seem to want to abolish the existing norms altogether or to advocate any clearly articulated reformist agenda. Rather, it picks and chooses argu- ments on an ad hoc basis, imitating Western positions in some other cases when de- parting from the basic norm of the status quo. Hence, we claim that Russia’s territorial revisionism is reactive, self-serving, and constrained by the desire to avoid changing the status quo doctrine to any great extent. Keywords Russia – borders – territorial integrity – national self-determination – historical rights © tuomas forsberg and sirke mäkinen, 2019 | doi:10.1163/2451-8921-00402004 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the cc-by-nc 4.0 License.
    [Show full text]
  • Russia's Afghan Policy in the Regional and Russia-West Contexts
    Études de l’Ifri Études de l’Ifri Russie.Nei.Reports 23 RUSSIA’S AFGHAN POLICY IN THE REGIONAL AND RUSSIA-WEST CONTEXTS Ekaterina STEPANOVA May 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. ISBN: 978-2-36567-855-1 © All rights reserved, Ifri, 2018 How to quote this document: Ekaterina Stepanova, “Russia’s Afghan Policy in the Regional and Russia-West Contexts”, Russie.NEI.Reports, No. 23, May 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 Author Dr. Ekaterina Stepanova heads the Peace and Conflict Studies Unit at the Primakov National Research Institute of the World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO), Moscow. Her research focuses on armed conflicts, terrorism and insurgencies, human security, political economy of conflicts, and peace-building. She is the author of six books, including Terrorism in Asymmetrical Conflict: Ideological and Structural Aspects (Oxford University Press, 2008).
    [Show full text]
  • Russian Hybrid Warfare in Syria: Airforce, Private Military Contractors and Dis-Information
    RUSSIAN HYBRID WARFARE IN SYRIA: AIRFORCE, PRIVATE MILITARY CONTRACTORS AND DIS-INFORMATION Maj Clayton A. Van Volkenburg JCSP 43 DL PCEMI 43 AD Exercise Solo Flight Exercice Solo Flight Disclaimer Avertissement Opinions expressed remain those of the author and Les opinons exprimées n’engagent que leurs auteurs do not represent Department of National Defence or et ne reflètent aucunement des politiques du Canadian Forces policy. This paper may not be used Ministère de la Défense nationale ou des Forces without written permission. canadiennes. Ce papier ne peut être reproduit sans autorisation écrite. © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as © Sa Majesté la Reine du Chef du Canada, représentée par represented by the Minister of National Defence, 2018. le ministre de la Défense nationale, 2018. CANADIAN FORCES COLLEGE – COLLÈGE DES FORCES CANADIENNES JCSP 43 DL – PCEMI 43 AD 2017 – 2018 EXERCISE SOLO FLIGHT – EXERCICE SOLO FLIGHT RUSSIAN HYBRID WARFARE IN SYRIA: AIRFORCE, PRIVATE MILITARY CONTRACTORS AND DIS-INFORMATION Maj Clayton A. Van Volkenburg “This paper was written by a student “La présente étude a été rédigée par un attending the Canadian Forces College stagiaire du Collège des Forces in fulfilment of one of the requirements canadiennes pour satisfaire à l'une des of the Course of Studies. The paper is a exigences du cours. L'étude est un scholastic document, and thus contains document qui se rapporte au cours et facts and opinions, which the author contient donc des faits et des opinions alone considered appropriate and que seul l'auteur considère appropriés et correct for the subject. It does not convenables au sujet.
    [Show full text]