CEU eTD Collection In partialfulfilmentof therequirements forthedegree ofMaster of Arts S HIFT IN E LITE -C R USSIAN HANGE Supervisor: Professor Anil Duman Anil Professor Supervisor: Department of Political Science Political of Department Central European University European Central O Nina Rozhanovskaya Nina RGANIZATION P Budapest, Hungary E C Submitted to Submitted OSITION TOWARDS THE XPLANATION OF HANGE 2007 By : P OLICY CIS CEU eTD Collection and the foreign policy line chosen by the representatives of these elite are confirmed.elite. current elite the in decision-making of the link composition the the between concerning role The expectations dominant the be playing to found are hand, other the on and economists, businessmen and hand, one the on backgrounds, security and military with Officials the Russian foreign policy and the studies of the Russian political elites. policy events, relevant for study the research.of Russianofficialthe anddiscourse paying special particularattention foreignto The work also makes analysis thediscourse reliesapplying to methods, The presentwork onthe useof qualitative full use of the existing analyses of Russian position towards the CIS. in stance the andsecurity-oriented decision- for amore profit-oriented the toaccount makers areexpected of backgrounds Personal explanations. agency-oriented on emphasis an with theory foreign elite and analysis isof policy basis the combination of research The theoretical studied phenomenon. the of explanation plausible most the considered is elite decision-making Russian of 1990s the Yeltsin.under presidency Boris the of changein The the composition the of with the intensive efforts, aimed at developinginiscontrast place analysed shift Putin.Vladimirwhich This took thepresidency under of the CIS organization, carried out in organization,theStates Independent of incourse Commonwealth the interest Russian decline of the The focus isshift thenamely in of Russian foreignpolicy, presentthe research recent the on Abstract i CEU eTD Collection EEECS...... 52 REFERENCES CONCLUSION...... 48 POSITION TOWARDS THE CIS...... 32 FORTHERUSSIAN CHAPTER 3—ELITECHANGEANDITSIMPLICATIONS COMMONWEALTH OF INDEPENDENT STATES ORGANIZATION...... 16 CHAPTERTHE 2—CHANGE INRUSSIANPOLICYTOWARDS AND ELITE THEORY COMBINED...... 6 CHAPTER 1—THEORY ANDMETHODOLOGY:FOREIGN POLICY ANALYSIS ...... 1 INTRODUCTION 3.4. 3.3. 3.2. 3.1. 2.5. 2.4. 2.3. 2.2. 2.1. 1.5. 1.4. 1.3. 1.2. 1.1. ...Ohrfrinplc eiinmkr n fiil ncag fCSmtes...... 43 policydecision-makers3.3.3. Other foreign andofficials in charge CIS ofmatters 3.3.2. Vladimir Putin and his close advisors...... 41 3.3.1. Ministry of Foreign ...... 38 Affairs officials 3.2.2. Putin era elite: ...... 36 dominant trends 3.2.1. Russian elite change: circulation ...... 34 vs. reproduction 2.2.3. The CIS in the rhetoric of ...... 21 Vladimir Putin 2.2.2. Indicators of the ...... 18 policy shift 2.2.1. The presence of the policy shift...... 17 E R R B E A T K T T P P T M HE EFFECTS OF FOREIGN POLICY ELITE CHANGE POLICY ELITE OF FOREIGN HE EFFECTS HE CHANGE IN THE HE IMPORTANCE OF DECISION HE XPECTATIONS CONCERNING XPECTATIONS RAGMATISM OF THE OSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS OF THE POLICY SHIFT USSIAN FOREIGN POLICY SHIFT TOWARDS THE ESEARCH METHODS AND THE LINK BETWEEN VARIABLES BETWEEN THELINK AND METHODS ESEARCH RIEF LITERATURE REVIEW RIEF LITERATURE LITE THEORY BASIS OF THE PRESENT RESEARCH PRESENT BASISOF THE LITE THEORY GENCY EY FOREIGN POLICY EY DECISION FOREIGN AJOR COMPONENTS OF THE PRESENT RESEARCH PRESENT OF THE AJOR COMPONENTS C OMMONWEALTH OF - ORIENTED APPROACH IN FOREIGN POLICY FOREIGNANALYSIS IN APPROACH ORIENTED R R USSIAN ELITE COMPOSITION USSIAN USSIAN FOREIGN POLICY I NDEPENDENT ...... 12 R USSIAN ELITE CHANGE Table of Contents of Table - - MAKERS FOR MAKERS OF THE S ii TATES R ...... 24 USSIAN FOREIGN POLICY CIS ...... 27 P ...... 11 – ...... 45 ...... 8 ...... 34 UTIN ELITE UTIN BRIEF OVERVIEW BRIEF ORGANIZATION ...... 32 ...... 14 ...... 6 ...... 37 ...... 17 ...... 16 ...... 30 CEU eTD Collection 2008, attempts toformulate preliminary aboutRussianconclusions foreign policy priorities (Lynch: 26). Now, when the second presidential term of Vladimir Putin is coming toan end in policy” foreign Russian of contours main the for account that manoeuvre Russian of margin external narrow very the than rather factors political internal been has it that hypothesis of test the “provide another couldnew administration underthe years seemed thatthe Russiait presidency to make the under about conclusions Vladimir However, Putin. of isthan often assumed”, though notfully institutionalised (Lynch: 26). balanced and coherent effective, more been has diplomacy “Russian challenges, external and be internal for as Lynch not problems granted. Despite all taken argues, should significant the unit-level than by system-level factors (Lynch: 7-8). However, this isnot always the case, and by policy foreign Russian explanations of in better integrating central Eurasia”, “the power andunstructured decision frequently incoherent” making, of establishing Russiaas priority amorphous, “highly power”, international of sinews classical the of disintegration forassumptions profound granted: crisisof identity, and national political “unprecedented and under conditions of the profound crisis of the state system. beof done inenvironmenttransition USSRrepublics.Allthis hadto former uncertain the the disintegration of the Soviet Union,finding at the same timenew ways of communication with apeaceful facilitate and was tofindcommunity Russiain for place the international the limited somewhat –scopeof with Oneof tasks availablepolicy crucial the goals. resources task of reformulating policy nationalpriorities, reconstructing identity, reconcilingnew – the domains: policy foreign and domestic in challenges serious with elites Russian the and Lynch’s article on Russian foreign policy inwas published 2001, when itwas too early Most of the scholarly debate on post-Soviet Russian foreign policy takes the following The collapse of Union in Soviet the Russia has confronted 1991 asits formal successor Introduction 1 CEU eTD Collection is not the case of radical rupture, still the new elite is different from the elite of the 1990s – 1990s the of from elite the is different elite new the still rupture, caseof radical the not is administration in in 2000thenew power politicalelite gradually Russia. Though came to this of intend elitethe Idemonstrate change. to followingthat of the change presidential presidency. Putin’s under CIS the of development the to attention low relatively the with Yeltsin) contrasting the intensity Russian integrativeof activities in 1990s the President(under means of promoting as a Federation Russian for the its attraction haslost CIS organisation the However, policy. Russianforeign priority theRussian of remains the top Baltic States, republicsof exception the with interestsformer Soviet and comprises “nearsometimes the abroad”) as (or CIS the to referred is often in the region.necessary to distinguish I betweenaim the CIS organisationto presidency in toBoris contrast – Yeltsin’s in administration – CIS.Here,itisshowrespect tothe and the CIS region. The thisregion, which phenomenon by democracies. Western inwell-established than change policy on impact higher a have to prove may circulation andelite perceptions elite institutionalisation, low to case, asdue in Russian the interest explanationelite-based i.e. my research, of of focus in the is foreignaspect a different however, line; policy foreign policy change. The inthe changes certain lead to to beexpected can an accommodation Such arena. international research based on elite its inof new decadeofitsindependence the first havingconsolidated the and position explanation is of faced thebeginning of special newmillennium,the having overcome themost significantproblems has place aninfluence onforeign policy, Russia not take adaptation, couldwithout which andconstraints. domestic incentives to attention special bemade, paying and major directions, as well as the rationale behind main foreign policy decisions, can indeed In order to understand this policy shift, I intend to test explanations,understandideaintendbased test to In on shift, this policy I the order to In the present work I aim to demonstrate that there was a policy shift under Putin’s for change and of theRussianFederation a period dramatic While 1990s were the 2 CEU eTD Collection “[c]ompared with the chaos that arose in the former Yugoslavia, another communist- another in formerarose the Yugoslavia, that chaos with the “[c]ompared do the same: bloodless Yugoslavian while state, common failed the dissolution of republics to ensure a managedto formerUSSR republics, they between anda certain tension conflicts analysts and politicians), the CIS has to a large partnersextent in the region as well as outside. fulfilled this aim,the as officialdespite bilateral statementsis justified by its importancehistorical and current for which Russianinterests, is in confirmed of Russian policy-makerswithdrawingbeing close to membershipits (Levchenkov)).The choice of policy this direction and pointed of Turkmenistan - having associate member –Georgiaa special status since2005,another – out by Russian foreignIndependent States, an organisationpolicy created in 1991, which comprises 12 states (one of them - stancein policy. foreign the power-based dominance of enforcement, andbig security businessservices), and(Shvetsova: 2).This liberal technocrats” the power structures may indeed account for a more benefit-oriented and is “comprised of of isthe “comprised manyas “Russian itfor according realpolitik” newelite, to the (Trenin,2004).As observers, to referred issometimes policy line, which foreign Russian not fitdoes current the project the because projectandthe with affiliated is less elite decision-making because current the era, Yeltsin' haswith in declined in comparison ideaRussian interest CISorganisation the the that test aim to I orientation. new policy and the change elite betweenthe association demonstrate an research purpose itisthe of to for bepresent establish linkhere; the enough acausal consideration. in under case the the Yeltsin decision-making elite, and I will argue that this difference resulted in a policy shift Established as a means of “civilised divorce”, as it is often called (by journalists, (by called often is it as divorce”, “civilised of means a as Established the Commonwealth of in Russianposition towards shiftThus,the the study Iwill The impact of the elite change on the foreign policy is two-fold. I do not aim to apparatchiki , the so-called the , 3 siloviki, i.e. power structures (military, law (military, structures i.e.power CEU eTD Collection the study change. study of the elite to also theoretical butapproaches the major concerningdata, elite characteristics, important analytical by articles specialistswritten All inRussian elites. studies notonly provide those possible; however, it is possible to make use of available studies of Russian elites, as well as Organisation, andthe Eurasian Economic Community” (Weitz, 2007). Shanghai the CollectiveCooperation suchasthe institutions Organisation, Security Treaty role for many years andinstead havetheir devoted strengthening attention towards other incentives itsto fellow member Russian states, officials havedeclined toplay locomotivethis and other offerits ability commercial to thanks to reforms certain CIS organisational between Russia its partners. and situation in the region is characterised by the failure of integration efforts and growing current The tension relations. international in position and structure political potential, economic size, in of diverse terms areextremely CIS, the comprising states, the past, their common Despite which is 407). disintegrative equallytrue nowadays processes”, (Sakwa/Webber, 1999: and integrative between is tension date the CISto of the feature “distinctive the that 1998, Sakwa (Pogorelsky,“disintegratingand permitted factor” Webbertoclaim 2007).This in as to referred is sometimes the1990s,now of course the force over mainbe integrative the to policyimportant CISprojectisdecisions” (Weitz, 2007). indecline, and Russia,whichused most itsinfluenceanyexert members’ on few “ceased to its firstandgreat years, after 379) 1999: (Sakwa/Webber, in meaningful sense” any states successor the Soviet integrate disintegration of Sovietthe Union with occurred surprisingly little violence” (Weitz, 2007). the divisions, ethnic underlying overcome had its failed to that state multinational dominated Due to the limited time and resources, a comprehensive independent study not isindependentstudy acomprehensive resources, limited the and time Due to RichardAccordingWeitz, “[a]lthoughpush to Russia bealone might to through able to “failed sametime hasthe at States Independent of Commonwealth the However, 4 CEU eTD Collection and independentvariables. to fill by establish blanksleft researchersandto linkthe previous betweenthe the dependent methods research analysis other and make will of in It discourse use also in CIS the particular. on existing ofRussian foreign and studies elites in Russian policy Russianstakes generaland bewill based presentresearch The abroad. and inRussia politicians and scholars of attention Russian foreignexternal environmentfor granted. Nevertheless,is it an important and interesting study, as the policyas the present research does not take into account external stimuli and takes the stability andof the the decision-making elite change and the foreign policy mayshift tobeprove development achallenging task, which is case in However,often analysis.link establishingthe foreign between the policy the of the CIS are topicsdecision-making. attracting and elite perceptions andsubsequently andeliteperceptions background between elite link the significantdemonstrating analysis: policy foreign and theory elite of basis the on specified be is to variables the between link exact The change. elite the from results shift policy The chosen topic is located at the crossroads of domestic and international politics, this is that hypothesis My shift. policy is the explain to aim I variable dependent The 5 CEU eTD Collection stable inordertofocusexclusivelynothing ondomestic and opportunities Indeed,constraints. made. of anddecisions theoutcomes output just the than rather decision-making Moreover, it deals with inputthe of and decision-makingthe procedure of theprocess shapingforeign policy. asactors individuals andthe of domesticrole processes account into takes which analysis, decision-making isthus theory policy foreign of schools major the Oneal.,1969: 75). foreign of (Brecheret widely policy decisions” asaffecting recognized arenow too, internal pressures, external stimuli; to asareaction longerexclusively seen no is behavior “State approach. structural one-sided its abandoned ago long theory policy variables. external on domestic emphases or the between aswell as explanations and structure-oriented agency-oriented a is faced andbetween choice with politics 121). Thus, aresearcher stillfind needs to waysof foreignbridging policy and domestic of linkagebetween the andforeigndomestic politics inal.,policy” (Hagan Neacket 1995: pieces rather different but theory a comprehensive not offers literature existing “[t]he Indeed, development of the scientificfield, comprehensiveforeign policy theories are still absent. dynamic the despite However, factors. different of variety the account into taking with. Themain challengeis provideto comprehensive explanations of foreign policy events, deal interesting but to makes complicated, andanalyze.thewholediscipline This disentangle to difficult being interaction this line, policy foreign the of formation the to contributing interaction factors, andexternal of is well singlecasestudies,domestic thesophisticated as Chapter 1 — Theory and Methodology: Foreign Policy Analysis and Elite For the sake of simplicity, in the present research I take the external environment as environment external the Itake research present in the simplicity, sakeof the For foreign states, individual system impactupon international the of thegreat Despite The major problem of the foreign policy analysis, when it comes to comparative as 1.1. Agency-orientedapproachin foreign policyanalysis Theory Combined 6 CEU eTD Collection systems, and perceptions into the research framework. However, is there framework. into a pressingneedto research systems,the perceptions and belief characteristics, individual of introduction the and achievements psychology social extensive of this leading tothe use viewed the central of decision-making, component as foreign policyby studies Jervis, Janis, Allison scholars.and other Cognitive processes are international negotiations. Thesame contributed scholar study to the of elites (Putnam, 1976). in part face taking when hasto official anauthorized constraints domestic specifying concept, international environmentwas carried outby Robert Putnam, originator of the two-level game and research bridgingthe important politics domestic gapbetween the Yetiv). An andrivalry bureaucratic (IrvingL.Janis)and groupthink politicsgovernment or A. (Steve instancesrules of concurrence-seeking andmaking to special andprocedures attention to with decision- to thosewhichstudy collective Levy),biases (JackS. perceptions andcognitive of role the on concentrating and Simon) Herbert March, G. (James bounded is rationality whichthose study individuals, either assuming theirfull rationality acknowledgingor that policies (Allison,are formulated 1969).Approaches generally by taken scholars vary from and “blackbox” of studyingmade, way state areformed the the are decisions preferences and Allison are among the most widely used and recognized methodsof opening the so-called models decision byGraham developed and bureaucratic Rational choice, organizational based therely roleon international the environment of agency in on decision-making. their of power exporter. Russia as bargaining the increased significantly commodities energy for prices world increase of the as asimplification, course, is, of this However, Russian foreign policy for Presidentdecision-makers as Boriswere they and Yeltsin hiselite. and are to alarge opportunities extent same the forVladimir President and Putin current asgivensince 2000presidential in elections Onecantake that Russia. external constraints the region has extenthappenedthe inthepost-Soviet collapse compared Soviet the of Union’s to The central role of individual decision-makers is emphasized in the classical works of works classical in the emphasized is decision-makers individual of role central The Foreign policy approaches, focusing on domestic factors, more than those which are 7 CEU eTD Collection policy shift under consideration, namely the decline of interest of Federation interestof Russian the declineof the namely policy consideration, under shift following of types policy change (in Pursuiainen, 2000:204-205): state’s pattern of foreign policy” Richard (Risse-Kappen, 1995:297). Hermann identifies the be“someinterchangeablemajor profound inthe reorientation of defined –can or as kind expressions usedhereas change–these two variable. policy dependentshift Policy or andand elitepower circulation. structures, recruitment studyingbelief elite hold who dealingthose fore, with tothe comes elite theory Here, in aliberal democracy. limited even is somewhat decision-makers and of those number the of astate, foreign policy for in preferences, and variation account makers, patterns biases cognitive theirthe attitudes, decision- Indeed, well. very approach this fits change policy foreign of explanation based preferences. and actions individual of a sum just than more is decision-making collective moreover, problematic; is actions policy foreign particular and beliefs individual between individualaggregate decision-makinga coherent intoroles link asthe structure, direct 4) 3) 2) 1) Thus, those kinds of change differ in degree, and one needs todetermine what type the all). of change substantial most the is (which line policy foreign the of reorientation total means); redefining in problemthe the both change and(involving inpolicy goals policy methods and means with policy goals staying the same); in change the involving qualitative, is (which change tactical or programmatic substance); in not intensity, in variation the involving is quantitative, (which policy of revision The crucial preliminary research task of the present work is to define and track the elite- then interaction, their and decision-makers individual are analysis of units the If 1.2. Major components of the present research ofthepresent Major components 1.2. 8 CEU eTD Collection organizations and movements of whatever kind, toaffect national political outcomes regularly definedby virtue as“persons able, oftheirwho are in positions authoritative powerful time” (Bottomore). any given at society in agiven power political exercise actually who “individuals (Meisel), conspiracy” and consciousness, coherence by “group characterized groups (Mills),decision-making “inthose politic” (Lasswell), major tomakepositions decisions having consequences” Zuckerman holdersbody be “power elite political of (1977: 326).Thus, defined can as a by classics of elite theory and by more recent theorists. I will recall just afew quoted by Allan give a definition working of “elite”. notion the There are plenty of provided both definitions issues playing agencies start major andcorresponding role). security to from economic instance, for shifts, bodies (emphasis those between of power backgroundviews and different comprise to come and dominatethem) as well thebalanceas different with (people changes bodies decision-making the of composition the as mechanisms, and second the first of the presence implies the Elite explanation change each other. in making be system which Pursuiainen,present also can combination (in 2000:205), with balance of andlearning of process 3)the power, individualsof the decision- belonging to inidentified:a change ininternal ofa composition 1)achange body, 2) decision-making stable. arepresumably interests far as asstrategic change, the tactical represents which attention, Russian significant of focus in the longer no is organization CIS Soviet region – remains same,the while methodsand meanshave significantly changed. The belongs to the second type of change,towards as the goalthe – promotingCommonwealth Russian interests of Independent in the post- States organization, belongs to. I claim that it The by definition, suggested following:the Paul Cammack national is elites are If one assumes the importance of elite change as an independent variable, one has to AccordingRichard to Hermann, basic three mechanisms of policy can change be 9 CEU eTD Collection However, I will discuss them so as to clarify what exactly I have in mind. while assumptionsbasis from both foreign concerning policyrole to analysisthe actors andof elitedecision-making,thederiving its main assumptions from decision-makingthe approach andtheory. attributing the major role The emphasisnotof theelites structures. is on foreign Moreover, arepolicy, takenit derives power. haveare saidthem considerable who to itsto theoretical a large foreign paying those people posts, important inof attention special to policy decision-making extent on concentrate mostly I personalities, studying When for position. high very in a being even granted.influential less be can one time same at the post, important particular a occupying without significantand rank high that is noteworthy It policy. foreign with dealing rank high of officials power do decision-making “elite” Iunderstand not term the under research present in the Thus, particular. always comewith foreign issues policy inCommonwealth general and of the in States Independent together.is clear that forOne the purposes can of the present it Besides, elite sets. broader studies of have researchers’ reliedother I However, on also era. possess research I focus Putin’s the of official only policy foreign on atypical of image those the considerable constructing when officials category, first who deal as influential,highly family close and members (in Zuckerman,I focus 1977:328). on the influence in power; those perceived as highly influential; those those of with a counter-ideologyharmony in are and who areoffice perceived occupied recently have who those officials; government Thus,point. Ihave limited thelist provided byHarold Lasswell, includes which high the 328)? I chose the second option, thosewhocontrol institutionalcontrol or power positions particular (Zuckerman, 327- 1977: as the notion of power is too tricky to make it a reference one, thoughlimiting scope the of elite’sthe influence toforeign issues.policy-related asaworking definition acceptCammack’s Iwill 1990:416). (Cammack, andsubstantially” The present work relies offoreign The presentwork change, onagency-based explanations policy The basic problem ishow to identify political elite for research purposes: as those who 10 CEU eTD Collection happens to behappens both to confirmed anddisconfirmed is in studies.different It important topoint elite, the of comprising decision-makers, and actions link betweenelite attitudes particular education socializationHowever,and the exact postrecruitment causal93-94). (Putnam, 1976: Among assumed generally origins the of onecanname background, orientations these social systems). belief elite of characteristics (structural orientations stylistic and 4) game), political work), 3)interpersonal how society ought to aboutorientations players other in (attitudes the orientations (assumptions about how society works), 2) normative orientations (views about VilfredoPareto and RobertMichels, following arethe (Putnam, 1976:3-4): Mosca, Gaetano namely theory, of elite by classics three the shared general principles Robert Putnam summarizes the major intuitively In his appealing (Zuckerman, 1977:324). achievements of elite theorists. According to him, the contemporary elite recruitment. political contemporary unity, due inter-governmental are alsoambiguous, they to rivalry and variety sources of of elite claimsAsthe about homogeneity and for liberal inmakingdemocracies. the modern elites is under question due to the high role5) of society and non-elite groups in the policy-4) 3) 2) 1) The elite is essentially is The eliteautonomous. essentially society”; The elite is“largely self-perpetuating andis drawn from a very exclusive segment of self-conscious”; and unified, homogenous, “internally is elite The who have none; thosewho“significant”have those powerand People into political only groups: fall two isunequally;Political distributed power Putnam Putnam identifies four basic of classes elite attitudes (Putnam, 1976:80):1)cognitive of autonomy The controversial. are classics, the by shared though principles, These The concept of political elite and the idea of unequal distribution of power are 1.3. Elite theory basis of the present research 11 “ Comparative study of political elites” political of study Comparative CEU eTD Collection elite is also widely present. Some of the scholars,like Frane and Tomsic, study the Russian reproduction, and thoughscholars most of thedid studies not ofmiss theconcern Soviet the Union,theopportunity early Russia 1990s variablesand Sincework. of dependent independent insightful for present the the the collapse has trends,been to understudy thethe Putinthoroughthe eraRussian attention patternof social scientists. of elite Elite circulation and have byone. by been postrevolutionary now pragmatic more replaced the Yeltsinbe elite “revolutionary” the theit case seems to that Andindeed, scale. revolutionary Soviet Union,However, Russia I believe itunderwent inby confirmed the1917revolution andthe the period Sovietafter the casecivil war. can also fit the present the specialists in andcontrol coercion” 201).This (Putnam,be hypothesis 1976: seemedto case,profound as immediatelyapparatchiki, socio-economic after the collapse by agitators bybureaucrats, ideologies are displaced progressively period postrevolutionary of the and political changeas its consequences. important as arenot change Russian behindelite the reasons the of a numerous possible explanations of why elite change occurs. However, for the present research talented individuals appear among the nonelite” (in 1976:167).ThisPutnam, is one of the stipulating that “elites tend todissipate their talents, while atthe same timefew a forceful and policy change. for account may – orientations in dominant change consequently – and change elite that work: of governance” (Putnam, 1976:105), this thesis beinginline with basicthe idea of presentthe patterns of stability and nature the “condition orientations Putnam, elite to according that out, In this section I briefly discuss some of the studies which proved to be useful and be useful to proved which studies the of some discuss Ibriefly section this In the “in that scholars some of hypothesis isthe study present the for Interesting circulation”, “elite of theory accepted widely the of author the is Pareto Vilfredo revolutionary modernizers by managerial specialistsmodernizers, in ideas by 1.4. Brief literature review literature Brief 1.4. 12 CEU eTD Collection proved to be highly informative. Thus, for instance Chatham House, or the Royal Institute ortheRoyal of for ChathamHouse, instance tobe Institute proved informative. highly Thus, foreign studiesthe shift, policy Russian the of variable, foreign i.e. policy dependent the the for As composition. elite Russian and change elite namely work, present the of variable the most influential officials of the Putin elite tofocus on (Nicholson, 2001). form those whoof part inRussia.His point currentstudy me the elite out political enabled to of personalities and individuals on concentrates Nicholson Martin shifts, and trends broad with deal who researchers, andother these Unlike 2005). (Rivera/Rivera, Russian politics conclusions about the implications of the change in the Russian elite composition for the Rivera the retested hypothesis by Kryshtanovskayaproposed and White madeimportant and difference in finalthe of results these (Rivera/Rivera,studies 2005:12).Sharon and David the explaining fact this criteria, selection sample of in terms is different set data Riveras’ relied ona2003sampleindividuals, of 786 basisthe on selected of positional approach, while andWhite for Kryshtanovskaya Political TheCenter Information. centre research independent setwas from The derived of yearly an 2005). original (Rivera/Rivera, data the directories andWhite) previous set (including and theoriginal findings Kryshtanovskaya of those data who investigated the recent(Kryshtanovskaya/White, 1996). policy trends foreign on specifically concentrate not did and terms positional in the Russianinterviews,making observations (Kryshtanovskaya/White, They 1996,2004). in elites defined eliteanalyzing their biographies, comparing carrying their background, formal out informal and compositioncolleagues, as they carried out aseries of comprehensive studies of the Russian onelite,based on the basisRussia as a case study. Kryshtanovskaya of and White are the scholarsthe often referred to by their on concentrate others 2002), (Frane/Tomsic, initperspective a comparative at andlook countries in post-socialist the representing among configuration elite justcase one those as Those are some of the major studies, contributing to the analysis of the independent the of analysis the to contributing studies, major the of some are Those Another pair of scholars who deserve special mention is Sharon and David Rivera, 13 CEU eTD Collection pragmatic, though pragmatic,giving though definitions different tothe notion of “pragmatism”. now isincreasingly and foreign theview they forms CIS only policy Russian share that part, other scholars provide a broad overview of the Russian foreign policy paradigm, of whicha quantitative out study foreign policy, Russian of the concentrating Most onfinancialissues. the Russian theCISstrategy. Safranchuk concerning policy-makers carries to recommendations 2004), Safranchuk (2006)and others. Torbakovis ajournalist gives and his policy such Torbakov inmatters, (Torbakov, Igor CIS as are alsospecialists just of them. one There CISbeing the policy, foreign Russian the of issues broad summary concerning and adebate International Affairs, provides on its web-site www.chathamhouse.org.uk elites’ belief shapingstructures, theirforeign policy /Billingsley,(Chittick 1989): assumptions and expectations, as some of them may be founded onstereotypes. be it careful with is necessary to Here, behaviour. elite and background elite between hypothesis implies link the in existence of the shiftthe CIS.This the Russianpolicy towards and elite change foreign policy decision-making fit Russian between the demonstrate to presumption is presentin the literature and is shared by many other theorists. Therefore, I aim characteristics andthe goals andbehaviour of elites” political this(Zuckerman, 1977:330), 3) 2) 1) policy foreign between comparison of basis as the identified are dimensions Three Though “sawlink Though background Lasswell noHarold social determinant between 1.5. Research methods1.5. Research andthe variables linkbetween – militarism versus nonmilitarism. versus – militarism means) policy (foreign system international the of operation the concerning unilateralism; versus – multilateralism objectives) policy (foreign system international of character the concerning isolationism; versus universalism foreign – andaffairs between domestic theboundary concerning 14 anumber of articles CEU eTD Collection focus on personalities of those who at present shape the Russian foreign policy. quantitative the elite Russian withconclusions the combining studies, their about composition existing on rely I elite of change the demonstrate to order In events. policy foreign study official rhetoricdecision-making of the majorapproach of foreignthe foreign policy policy analysis. decision-makers I resort to the discourse quantifiable. not analysis and to I analyze particularforeign policy beliefs, attitudes and preferences and the major components of my research as asIdeal matters use qualitativemethods, space. Moreover,suchambiguous I with Soviet are pursue Russian in aimshave strategy post- the circumstances could chosen to a different external different the in elite decision-making same the instance, For policy. foreign carefully, as background and beliefs of foreign policy makers are not the only source of the of result should However,research from generalizations bemadebeing generalizable. the prevent not does this However, region. one on concentrate and policy foreign Russian with(which is connected background occupational of the newthe elite). andamore line foreign matter) realist general of policy anddecision-makers perceptions personal idea with isattitudes that the CISorganization connected the towards closely (which of personal decision-makers inindifferent attitude amore resulting case is present two-fold, tendtobesubtle. more fluctuations whereelite belief change, deals accountingattitude, forwork profound the with while present the tactical change, policy In order to establish the link between the variables I combine elite theory and theory elite Icombine the variables between establish link the to In order This research represents a case study, therefore, I deal with only one object of the I hypothesize that the impact of the change in the Russian elite general the for of analysis framework the represent dimensions these However, elite composition in the 15 CEU eTD Collection by the Council of by Council andthe Headsof incumbentthe by CIS of replaced The State Yuriy Yarov. in Berezovsky oneyear April Berezovsky from later his 1998. However, dismissed was post CIS events in al., etOlcott 1999:243-248). their Union Treaty starting the Security Treaty, andon2April ofthe Russian1997 Presidents Federation and Belarussigned way towards the Collective the signed – creationTajikistan and Uzbekistan, Russia, Kyrgyzstan, of Kazakhstan, the Armenia, Union State (Chronology of include all member CIS Thus, states. for instance, on 15 May in1992 Tashkentsix countries – withdrawing its membership. Lithuania, Thus,al.,1999:243-248). now the CIScomprises all republics withex-Soviet of exception the Latviaet in Olcott events CIS of (Chronology member full and a as Commonwealth the joined formally Estonia (i.e.,Heads twelveof State CIS summit. Council of These werethe first the duringDecemberestablishedon 30 1991 out and of thefifteen), Council inmainsigned thedeclaration Kazakhstan. CISthe The governing Almaty, bodies of were however,of Headsheads ofstate include when USSR republics, former their CISwas the eleven to enlarged ofGeorgia Government. – 1991 21 December Twoweekslater–on 1991). former(CIS Charter, territory USSR the of is close On agreementand integration promote expressed theirwillingness to and cooperation in the toFebruary whenDecember 1991, headsthe of of state Belarus, Russia1999 andUkrainesigned their Tajikistan coveringmost unique integration of space.Itproject, post-Soviet the wasestablished 8 on Chapter 2 — Change in Russian Policy towards the Commonwealth of theCommonwealth towards Chapter 2—Changein Policy Russian The first CIS Executive Secretary was Ivan Korotchenya, replaced byBoris replaced IvanKorotchenya, was Secretary CIS Executive The first donot which CIS, of the framework inthe projects integrative narrower There are a as research present the of focus in the is States Independent of Commonwealth The 2.1. TheCommonwealthof Independent States–briefoverview Independent States Organization States Independent 16 CEU eTD Collection the last section of chapter. section lastof this the in bediscussed will in particular CIS the towards and in general policy foreign Russian the of pragmatism The in practice. interest national promoting of instruments efficient more finding in interest asbased ofvague instead and benefitrhetoric mutual official common on the appealing to herecanbeviewedasboth “Pragmatic” CISorganization. the line towards all costs weighingto the of andbenefitscosts andfollowing amore pragmatic foreign policy integration isfrom at (Zatulin,of ashiftThus,developmentand CISproject the 2006). there Russian partners thatcooperation in framework of the CISorganization,the under Putin’s itpresidency to seems Russia is ready to sacrifice towards CIS:underthe was Yeltsin’s presidency itsRussia forsacrificing sake interests the of integration policy Russian the in be tracked can extremes two Duma, State Russian the of member in favor of oil and gas profits bottomthe and has pushed himself it”up from (Sakwa/Webber, 1999:379). “aBorisman hasCIS to relations drowning reached to advisor (who) compared Yeltsin, the international Prikhodko, Sergei instance, for Thus potential. future its on hopes certain placing it, promote to pushing still was Russia but times, numerous officials high Russian the a newby phenomenon.Thisininefficient isnot wasacknowledged the 1990saswell– this was CISorganisation the However, 2007). Weitz, (in ofwork” methods forms and“obsolete signs of Russian dominance in the Commonwealth. secretary was Belorussian,in executive first Thus, the appointed 2004. – was – VladimirExecutive Secretary Rushailo while the rest were Russian citizens, this fact being one of the The Russian President Vladimir Putin has recently “complained that the CIS employs CIS the that “complained recently has Putin Vladimir President Russian The According to Konstantin Zatulin, Director of the Institute of the CIS countries and the and countries CIS the of Institute the of Director Zatulin, Konstantin to According 2.2. Russian foreign policy shift towards the CIS organization towardsthe foreignpolicyshift Russian 2.2. 2.2.1. The presence of the policy shift 17 CEU eTD Collection restructuring in this of organization. 1999Berezovskywasremoved from However,his post, and reform comprehensive carry the out to theplan with Secretary Executive CIS the of post tothe in Berezovsky Boris wasappointed migrationkeeping, policies1998 etc.Moreover, toCIScountrieswith varioushumanitarianissuesinstitutions: related cooperation, and peace- Itdealt structures. of in Russian executive framework the the CISwascreated Ministry the of increasedevelopingThus, in its efforts regional at the CIS. the to 1998 the dominance, commitment to it on the part some of its member-states prompted Russia, as the state claiming lackof andthe organization CIS the of The inefficiency 1995). Course, region (Strategic integrationwheremain was named process in Russianaims promotion the of the among the Federation in relations with the member-states of the Commonwealth of Independent States”, integration. of spirit the contradicting member-states CIS the towards policy statements, official in future of the in CISorganization the the projects region, concerning the harshremarks expenditures promotion active on CIS activities, integrative of and parallel cooperative Amongin of framework budgetary in 1990s). decline the CISthe them of share the are the in the efforts intensive integrative to (in contrast are present this organization towards interest firmly adhered toCISprinciples (Yeltsin, 1997). developmentof integrationthe in process region,the butunderlined thatRussia nevertheless current the with dissatisfaction he expressed where speech, a made Yeltsin summit CIS inthe 1997at Thus, totheproject. committed werestill 1990s, Russianauthorities In 1995 President Boris Yeltsin approved the “Strategic course ofthe“Strategic Russian YeltsinBoris course In 1995President approved the lack andin of CISproject the involvement lack Russian of of present the signs Several Despite problems conflicting and interests, whichwerefacing the CIS already in the 2.2.2. Indicators of the policy shift 18 CEU eTD Collection functions, isfunctions, theEurasianEconomic Community, a regional organization aimed atregulating implications. considerable had them of none and establishment, its organization. However,it is only one of the numerous appeals to reform the CIS, voiced since CIS the strengthen could Lavrov, by mentioned reform, The now. present indeed existingstructures in the region in toavoidorder duplicating of functions. Such isduplication narrower account the intotaking CIS, the reforming thenecessity of He alsounderlined full-fledged integration an structure or internationalefficient organization” (Lavrov,2007). become a either failed to CIS presentat “the that out He pointed Newspaper”). (“Independent in “Nezavisimaya gazeta” the Duma, laterpublished was Russian which the State significantly more In efforts. 2007 Russian Foreign madeMinister Sergey Lavrov aspeech in structures in the post-Soviet region, to the development of which Russia at present contributes CIS the organization for Russian foreign policy 2006). (Safranchuk, pointof half of itwas inwhat the late1990s.This the trend contradicts alleged importance of sharethe of “CISthe wasconstantly decreasing after 2001andstabilized expenses” atthe however, overall the flows financing Russian foreign policy steadilywere increasing and thus, fluctuating expenses” werelate 1990s, level stabilized until significantly atthe they of the “CIS 2000 CIS.After the than fluctuation muchmorewithout directions, demonstrate inefforts The figures, the CIS(Safranchuk, takingintoaccount the 2006). CIS expenses on foreignits including thebasisofbudgetary policy ofmaintaining(on data), costs its the “Auditing of foreign Russian the policy” hestudied the fluctuations of on Russian expenses made his exampleresearch the Another from organization. by isderived Safranchuk. In Affairs. Foreign of Ministry the into CISreform the notimplemented,was andin May2000the Ministry CISwasmergedthe of One of the structures, present in the post-Soviet region and duplicating the CIS the duplicating region and in post-Soviet the present structures, One the of is cooperative parallel of existence the the indicator of policy shiftthe One more This is one of the indicators of the decrease in the Russian commitment to the CIS 19 CEU eTD Collection the Treaty itincludes Treaty the Armenia, member-states: Atsigned in Belarus, present 1992. seven official site). alliance; its however, majorfocus is on security issues (Shanghai Cooperation Organization / Any transfer of sovereigntycooperation security, theCIS,whichisaimed integration. unlike and regional at promoting is out of Regionalthe Anti-Terrorist This Structure. factthe underlines emphasisthe thisof institution on question in and case Secretariat bodies –the permanent has two SCO the ministers, and government of heads of the SCO. It is state, of heads the of meetings regular to addition In stability. and security not peace, regional a military education,as well protection ensuring technical environmental affairs, as sphere, culture, includeThe in political of cooperation promoting declared aims organization the trade, CIS. of the member-states also are its member-states five of Thus, andUzbekistan. Tajikistan Kyrgyzstan,Kazakhstan, China,Russia, by six incountries: which wasestablished 2001 site). official / Community Economic (Eurasian sovereignty member-states’ to the as athreat from itperceived being problems prevents political than rather on economic Itsfocus integrative structure. may amore become efficient and indeed of matters cooperation on particular concentrates Community Economic Eurasian the CIS organization, Unlike the Council, organization.the of has of Putin Interstate governingbody the been the chairman (Moldovaobserver status andUkraine in 2002, Armenia in 2003). Since June 2006President given are Ukraine and Moldova, Armenia, while member-state, its as Community Economic Vladimirpower from transfer YeltsinBoris joinedIn Uzbekistan theEurasian to 2006 Putin. the after already itwas established Thus, Tajikistan. and Russia, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, The treaty organization wassignedestablishingin this by of 2000 Presidents the Belarus, union. customs integration common establishing the stage after of nexteconomic spaceasthe common of andtheir creation the its member-states of policy foreign economic common the The Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) was established on the basis basis of the on wasestablished (CSTO) Organization Treaty Security The Collective is (SCO), One theShanghai Cooperation Organization more parallel organization 20 CEU eTD Collection officials and media, political scientists making conclusions about the fluctuations in Russian fluctuations the about conclusions making scientists political media, and officials policy analysts, scholars, of attention considerable draw statements official his and strategies, and policies major he defines as Federation, Russian the of system political in the President tothe role isattributed A moment. great given the at President Russian the for importance its issue indicator of isan this orthat foreignRussian priorities, on asthe domestic emphasis and shiftsthe they in of have Instead reflect topics. listnot They Federation. do apredefined policy is thepresidential addresses delivered annually Federalto the Assembly of Russian the CIS. the for attention and drawoff resources structures Thus, being lesscomprehensive in of terms scope andmembership, duplicating the regional organization. CIS the overshadowing completely region, often CIS the concerning statements presentinthey promising andmentionedare considered projects arealways official were transformed in 2000s.the This highlights their priority for Putin’sthe administration. At were createdearlier, established other two but of Putin, the presidency the Vladimir during was structures above-mentioned of the The first anymore. CISorganization the of framework whichneighbouringthose cooperate, arewillingbutnotnecessarily states, to in the Soviet space their foreign policyis andall noteworthy it notbutthat of them, in which those, cooperation consider the post- priority. This means that Russia is eager to cooperate withsite). / official Organization Treaty Security more years(Collective for three Secretary-General the 2006 Nikolay Bordyuzha, representing RussianFederation, the post wasreappointed tothe of structure. Theinitial international intoTreaty was transformed in areal organization 2002.In Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. The CSTO is amilitary-political One of importantOnesources of most the of information the fluctuationsinabout Russian sum includeTo of organizations above-mentioned member-states up, the CIS, the the 2.2.3. The CIS in the rhetoric of Vladimir Putin 21 CEU eTD Collection Council of the Heads of Governments, or official summits and Inter-Parliamentary Assembly, Inter-Parliamentary and summits official or Governments, of Heads the of Council social Againinitiatives.nothing wassaidabouttheCouncil Heads the of or the of States, and business flows, information trade, of issues the emphasizing Community, Economic of Common framework the Eurasian within SpaceandEconomic the priority,the especially (Annualstructures Address,Presidential 2003). stressing the importance of mentioningcooperation,not but theinstitutional mainCIS again Organization, Treaty Security Collective the and Community Economic Eurasian of the role the and emphasized interests”, “strategic its of sphere the for Russia, priority multilateral cooperation (Annual Presidential Address, 2002). –“the countries”–andtheirbilateral itsand member-states CIS butabout organization, CIS speak aboutthe hedid not However, joint projects. economic roleof same the the time at in underlining region, the as of stability” CIS “factor the the roleof andthe military, and strategic economic, political, interests”: national and on isbased “capabilities policy, which justify significant Russian influence (Annual Address,Presidential 2001). result appealspragmatism isgraduallybecoming thebasisofRussianforeign inpolicy the and region, asa to commonalitiesproximity,as is the to which referred integration. commonly foundation Indeed,of this between historical into CISspace the addition activities Russian instimulating considerations” the states are becoming and integration. just a rhetorical of -was address 2000 till aspects April cooperation on different last the delivered on 26, 2007 tool to CIS is in present speeches; however,usually thepresidential focus everyyear the –since the of issue The guidelines. implicit as statements these regarding officials priorities, policy In 2004 Vladimir Putin stated furtherintegrative In in2004 VladimirPutin of stated efforts theCISasa Russia In 2003PresidentPutin in stated a straightforward manner the CISregion that is a In 2002 PresidentPutin again emphasized pragmatism the “strict” of foreign Russian In 2001 President Putin in his annual speech stressed theimportance of “practical 22 CEU eTD Collection the CIS as the initial integrative project of the post-Soviet space. The2007speech seems also of post-Soviet integrativethe CISastheinitial the project not institutional on beparallel andon structures, stress Moreover, ontheregion the seems to pragmatic references to mutual economic benefit as the basis of cooperation in the CIS region. role in of integration economic CIS region 2007). Address, (Annual Presidential the stressing Community, Economic Eurasian the and Organization Cooperation Shanghai the mentioned and Union Russian-Belarusian the of project the about in detail spoke He partners. its of interests the account into taking interests, its owneconomic promote to it tries instead arrogance”,that of any attitude avoiding countries all with develop equal relations “seeks to Russia importantHe claimed that to resolve problems”. work non-ideological pragmatic, and policy for direction Russianthe Federation (Annual Address,Presidential 2006). ashespace as of importance underlined, had post-Soviet the aforeign previously, done the he and underway models for cooperation search is adifficult there that agreed He Belarus. with State Union the and Community, Economic Eurasian the Space, Common Economic –the projects economic parallel of development dynamic the stressed also He problems. organization has playedinfacilitating dissolution of the USSRandthe subsequent solving international law”predictability role supremacy and the the andacknowledged CIS the of factunderlined Russianforeign is the that based policy upon“principles of pragmatism, rhetoric (Annual Address,Presidential 2005). official of basis the becoming is which pragmatism, of reflection the again is which foreign, be basisof the the to seem interests economic moreover interests, aseconomic aswell foreign of which a limited numberof CISthe states are part (Annual Presidential Address, 2004). projects, butintegrative deeper All isonnarrower, stress the CISmember-states. including all Thus, we clearly see that the stress upon Thus, weclearly upon historicissee thatthestress proximity bymore replaced joint, “foreign isPutinIn Russianpolicy at declared aimed 2007 President that In 2006President Putin a lotdevoted foreign of attention to policy issues. He Russian with connection in member-states CIS the mentioned Putin Vladimir 2005 In 23 CEU eTD Collection decision-makers of torevive attempts while of Yeltsin organization, the the carried out decision-makers elite yet, as similar statements weremade by the previous administration as well. Nevertheless, the shift policy the of a symptom not is it However, reform. needs and inefficient is which one much more significant” (Security Council / summary, 2004). and remarkable more much been have could citizens their and member-states its both for activities CIS the of efficiency “the that said he things other among where meeting, Council the high officials of the of in thereports as “the CIS” to referred are of region which the is states itonly mentioned; Security Council. President not are however, CIS structures, overall The integration. of economic pillars the Space are Putin made a statementstructure in atthe region, this while the EurasianSecurity Economic Community and the Common Economic security major namedasthe was Organization Security Treaty Collective The partners. its of and Russia interests national on was placed accent the and was emphasized approach politics of Russia” (Security Council /summary, The pragmatism of Russian the 2004). of domestic the butalso only foreign, the of not issue strategic “the crucial deemed issue was with followingthe “On agenda: Russian the Federation policy in the CIS space”. Theagenda administration towards fullythe tothe CISandreflecting Putin of of official structure, this position devoted it, is the officialmaking bodiesof RussianFederation,the andpractically onlythe available online document summary policy offoreign major the of theone is Council Security The Council Council. Security the of rhetoric meeting of 19 July Iwill inbrief the one.However, discuss also comprehensive most the can be considered 2004, CIS countries. to be animplicit reaction problems the to is Russia in nowfacingits bilateral with relations The incumbent Russian presidential administration often refers to the CIS project as Annual only Addresses arenotthe butPresidential of indicators, source policy shift 2.3. Possible explanations of the policy shift ofthe Possible explanations 2.3. 24 CEU eTD Collection at: http://www.gks.ru/free_doc/2006/b06_13/24-08.htm 14530 13824 14617 15711 20498 29471 32594 13592 11604 11202 10163 13139 17713 19035 1995 200020012002200320042005 isincreasing. with theCISstates trade Russian data, statistical official to according among is instance,For foreign ofRussian and notonly thepriorities key policy, this rhetoric. proclaimed still are republics USSR Former plausible. not is explanation this However, in region. the project integration for acomprehensive is noneed there then interests, focusin of Russian the forand arenolonger Russianattention vitally important strategic be the shift of priority from the region itself. Indeed, if the post-Soviet countries are nolonger results. concrete of favour in integration abandoned having communication, efficiency,butin fact have switched tomore efficientorganizational and structures tobilateral reformsforeignbig about current policy repeatthe possible and words decision-makers Concept of Federation ConceptPutin of Russian byPresidentthe A largeon approved 28 June 2000. Policy Foreign –the policy foreign Russian the of documents principal the of in one listed majororganization).international in and directions priorities The the arenaof Russia are the point of view of supporting the Russian position as a regional power. from important strategically they remain Moreover, etc. minorities of Russian-speaking rights protectfight need needthe andthe borders, to common drug-trafficking to organized crime, because of the important They are also sphere. in energy the especially partners, trade Russian main the among remain republics USSR Former in decline. not is region CIS the of SOURCE: Russian foreign data 1995-2005. trade Table 1.Foreign tradewiththeCIS (atactualprices,member-states USD): mln. What are the reasons behind the policy shift under consideration? One of them could As for official rhetoric, it confirms the importance of the CIS region (but not the not (but region CIS the of importance the confirms it rhetoric, official for As This is a positive trend, which means that Russian economic interaction with the states the with interaction economic Russian that means which trend, positive is a This Export 25 . Federal State Statistics Service Import . Available CEU eTD Collection and thisforeign change that in results line adifferent policy includes theshift and of position decision-making Ihypothesize elites. wasan thatthere elite changeinrecentRussian history of characteristics broader, taken or leaders, political of i.e.characteristics them, of one on properties of international the In system 1985:12). (Geller, presentthe research Ifocus only situations; of qualities transitory society; of attributes the of regime; the characteristics andfeatures properties, the decision-making; of governmental bureaucraticaspects the leaders; of political characteristics personal the namely: Rosenau’s paradigm, to correspond Nations (CREON) Project. Their six “theoretical perspectives” or explanatory factors roughly frameworks to use is the However,one the Putin administration, unlike Yeltsin’s, does not try hard to reviveelaborated it. highhisand officialsis being also acknowledged CISfarfrom the that asuccessful project. by the Comparative“civilized divorce”, aimedResearch itsin asa outlivedsoon the 1990sandvery inefficientuse wasalready this organization at ensuring the onpeaceful but could reason, be the It interests. their of the promotion the facilitate itnot did member-states dissolution Events of theof Soviet by obstruction the integration dueto inand region, deepening the tothe of contribute Union. Yeltsin promote is CISmerely inefficiency? its the in TheCIS due to it inefficient dida sense not that – regional activities –narrower in other cooperation active andfrom Russian the statements from official activity, and projects, mentioned above. Then, could priority (Foreign Policy 2000). Concept, it be that Russia doesCIS as a whole and in narrower associations” with the notRussian-Belorussian Union being a top with CIS member-states. potential Accordinginconflict region.the The forpriority Russia is multilateral and bilateral cooperation to the Concept, borders” and “good-neighbour of beltRussia’salong perimeter elimination any of the Russia will the of creation the to promotecountries, neighbouring with relations Russian to interactionis devoted it of section “in the Thus, there is a need to find alternative explanatory is Oneof Thus, there variables. possible aneedtofindalternativethe explanatory trade from is the seen It attention. Russian in of focus the is still region Thus, the 26 CEU eTD Collection independent body body independent internationalstudy expressingpromoting the rigorous andof not questions foreign policy.Chatham House, orthe Royal Institute of International Affairs, claims to be an 2006 by provide insightful,Chatham House, avery but overview concise of Russian the views expressed by various foreign policy andanalysts specialists in foreignRussian policy. one needs to concentrate on the Russian foreign phenomenon, this paradigm.study to order In In line. order policy to doforeign this,Russian new I willthe fit not studydoes theproject presidency. Putin’s the of beginning in the made choice the to adhere still policy-makers foreign Russian that believe I CIS, the Yearof the 2006 wasdeclared theyear though option. And latter the of favour madein choice was the Heclaimed that (in Kasaev, 2001). relations bilateral line basedon choosingmoreits pragmatic partners or a to all andconcessions priceendless at atthe of costs integration betweenpromoting infuture, Russiafacedadifficultnearest choice structure the him,to account into prospects taking poor the of CISbecomingthe integrative real the reformulating According statement about CISorganization.the towards Russianposition the chapter. next in the change elite the with it linking CIS, the towards policy Russian in the is reflected it how and paradigm policy foreign Russian new the on project, which also partly accounts for the policy change. In the next section I will concentrate policy towards Russian the for implications significant has it that and elite, the Yeltsin the than instruments CIS project. I also occupational background, chooses foreigndifferent policy goals and foreign policy claim that the new and its educational dueto newelite, the that claim I CISorganization. the towards elite feel less affiliated with the The results of the Experts’ Russian Foreign Policy Roundtable, held on 8November on held Roundtable, Policy Foreign Russian Experts’ the of results The integration isthis theCIS that towards policy shift for the reason the Therefore, made Russian a Council, Security Secretary the of In Sergey the Ivanov, 2001 2.4. Pragmatism of the Russian foreignpolicy oftheRussian Pragmatism 2.4. 27 CEU eTD Collection selected interests,selected notvalues” and that “Russia’s foreign key policy arepriorities <…> draw attention his“Russianto that claims foreign isbased policy on convergencethe of comprehensive of foreignprinciples summary and newRussian the policy.like to Iwould Bobo Lo, headsame Dr. EurasiaInstitute, of has published programme,Russia and online a discussion of the Russian foreign policy provided by Chatham House. In the framework of the it be than seems in pragmatic to being a sense profit-oriented. of more fact in is it then relations, bilateral in leverage energy of role dominating increasingly the upon attention concentrates if one However, rational. and balanced being not of sense official and statements moves policy foreign Russian recent that out points one If pragmatism. of definition were to a large extentit on behinddepends the 1990s.Besides, thanin the actions more rationale the pragmatic dictated by emotions, be based more and rhetoric upon Russianthe pragmatic CISregion the towards position to then it is unpragmaticthe claim is justified and the overall intrend is that of decreasinga pragmatism,it does not prevent unpragmatic” Roundtable, (Experts’ Russian Foreign 2). Nevertheless, if Policy 2006: even and inertia. Russiancase institutional constraints the than more in matter do positions decision-making tooccupy people highest the hethose whom recruits personality Presidentand the Russian the of Roundtable,2006:2).Therefore, Foreign Policy vectors key foreignof in is“building the the policy dominance space”(Experts’ post-Soviet highlypolicy bythe of dominated president’s process that power”and one personalized the “the quality argument is that decision-making the reduced byanunder-institutionalized of Russian foreigncontemporary characterizing agree on key points managed to topics, onsome hotdebate the policy.fruitful discussion,set despite issues, offoreign the broad the covering experts, policy related Importantopinions from of its theown (The point Royal Institute of view of International of the Affairspresent disclaimer). research Following theis the The above-mentioned roundtable debate summary is not the only informative only the not is summary debate roundtable above-mentioned The increasingly “becoming is policy foreign Russian that claim experts the However, 28 CEU eTD Collection yet to be September (Torbakov,yet 20 formulated 2004). to despite the presence of the policy shift, the “clear-cut strategy” towards the CIS countries is However, stance. more pragmatic toa inits framework efforts integrative and organization (Torbakov, 4June 2004),which shiftrepresents the from emphasisthe on CIS the interests” strategic forRussia’s significance and capacities, transit potential, their economic Russiaindeed is“prioritize starting to its with variousrelations CIScountries on depending indeed and do dominate so-calledthe it pragmatists seems that mixture positions, the of these bilateral inis Russianforeign policy still 4June2004).Though (Torbakov, therelations CIS solid themove“paperto integration” whopromote from pragmatists, post-Soviet space,and speaksitself, for integrationists, who advocate the Russia-lead modelsupranational in the name whose neo-imperialists, strategies: CIS major three suggesting of scholars groups to “pass away peacefully” (Nikitin, 2007:8). current conditions Russia has redefineto its policy towards the region and allow the CIS itself Nikitinunder1). believes that the 2007: CISorganization (Nikitin, a more comprehensive unlike states, only CollectiveOrganization,post-Soviet whichincludes Security seven Treaty weakening of and structure balance of CISasanintegrative the the shift infavor the of the He acknowledges Relations. of International Institute State Moscow at Department Director of the Center elite. Putin of the composition linkedthe with are economization and thesesecuritization that for Euro-Atlantic increasing in useof instruments formereconomic republics.relations with Soviet Ibelieve Security 2004: 7),which “economization” policy foreign of of so-called leads tothe the the (Lo, and as andpursuitof profitalsobutshape Russianpriorities aresult Professor security, economic interests ofRussian in foreign policy general inand its strategy in the CISregion particular. Notonly the Politicaloverwhelmingly 2004:7). (Lo, security-oriented” This isinline with increasingthe realism of Science Igor Torbakov, a journalist and researcher specializing in CIS politics, identifies three identifies politics, in CIS specializing researcher and a journalist Torbakov, Igor byAlexanderAnother briefing Chatham Nikitin, wasprepared House paper the 29 CEU eTD Collection cultural 2006:62). (Lo, cultural heritage,interdependence economic political ties, andfound their official upon:shared rhetoric history, geographical proximity,common exploit areinstruments policy-makers the andthere by perceivedpolicy-makers, anddefined 2006: 62).Thus, there areRussian – national interests presumably butsubjectively objective, (Lo, inorientation” patrimonial and realpolitik isunashamedly its approach Soviet empire, the in resurrecting interest no and intention no “has Moscow as imperialism, not is region CIS action.or event particular presidentagainst that by a as aprotest from statements anddefection participating or this is very much focused on the summits of organization the work the Indeed, 2005: 9). (Trenin/Lo, presidents” sovereign post-Soviet of heads the of ofgathering statesinstitutionalized an but little is (CIS) withStates Independent of specialCommonwealth emphasisthe that say to on overstatement their an of much not “is it Lo, and Trenin joint to according Moreover, recruitpriorities high andforeign to rank personnel for issues policy 2005:9). (Trenin/Lo, and directions policy to defineforeign President or Secretary-General tzar, the of business fact that Russian foreign policy-making ishistorically highly personalized. Itwas always the them. by chosen line policy foreign the and decision-makers policy foreign the of and backgrounds – orientation linkbetween on the changeof –consequently dominant the the foreign policy (Trenin/Lo, 2005: 7). However, Iwill, due to the limitations of the space, focus Russian of contemporary the give afull picture to factors andexternal interests ideas, context, institutional for6). Trenin amoreLo strive comprehensive approach,and the combining makes Russian foreign of policy” instead why particular decisions aremade (Trenin/Lo, 2005: andpolicy focus mainlyare narrow andmechanisms, on actors question “who answering the 2.5. The importance of decision-makers for Russian foreignpolicy for Russian of decision-makers The importance 2.5. According to Lo, promoting Russian economic, political and security interests in the interests security and political economic, Russian promoting Lo, to According The major reason for relying on the personality and agency-oriented approach is the According toBobo Lo and Dmitri Trenin, the studies of contemporary Russian foreign 30 CEU eTD Collection be discussed in bechapter. discussed next the will phenomena two these between link The elite. decision-making Russian the of change the hypothesize thisthat pragmatism andthepolicy towards shift CIS the organization from result I effective political 2006:67). Russian inextending influence”economic (Lo, and the Yeltsin years” (Lo, 2006: 67) and that itimplies “discreet activism that proved much more of to“theinflammatory rhetoric is asopposed pragmatic in It practice. and official rhetoric Thus, inforeign isin region policy current the Russian both theCIS pragmatic,the 31 CEU eTD Collection conceptual foreignconceptual of with others) complexity, (aggressive policy orientations two distrust (nationalism,belief in one’s own ability controlto events, need for power, need for affiliation, linkingHowever,Hermann’s study,affairs” (Hermann, 44). sixpersonal characteristics 1980: in foreign interest or training special as variables mediating such account into taking without the 1980). Moreover, itself her variables both between relationship manifests with and governmentand links theirforeign policy with orientations their features personal (Hermann, 45 headsof of of study the results the presents leaders” Hermann of political characteristics making.instance, in For her article “Explaining foreign behaviourpolicy using personal the and theirforeign policy behaviour and asserted rolethe ofleadership style inforeign policy- preferences leaders’ between correlation the established who her colleagues, and Hermann by Margaret out carried from studies followthe also expectations These orientations. backgroundbiases their and shapes andthusdefines preferences theirforeign policy This is inline foreign with policy decision-making theories, claiming decision-makers’that career patterns, to have a significant influence upon theirforeign policy choices and decisions. foreign Russian CISproject. the and the towards policy position determining focus who onalimited have number shaping on animpact of key decision-makers Russian the Russian elite as wellpolicy inelite Todemonstrate particular. change,Irely this on existing quantitative of studies as the foreign views Russian and in general elite Russian the of voiced composition in the change the from results by scholars organization, States Independent of analyzingCommonwealth the from attention of shift the namely Russian politics. I also Chapter 3 — Elite Change and Its Implications for the Russian Position I expect the foreign policy decision-makers’ background, especially education foreign especiallyeducation background, I expectand the policy decision-makers’ region, post-Soviet the in policy foreign Russian in change tactic the that hypothesize I 3.1. Expectations concerning Russian elite change elite Russian concerning Expectations 3.1. towards the CIS 32 CEU eTD Collection affiliation with the Commonwealth of Independent States organization. States Independent of Commonwealth the with affiliation they of by virtue theirage, institutional orscope of position responsibilities could feelspecial upon look is checkif careerpatterns of to necessary the decision-makers the and to current forums1990s brought CIS the together linked decision-makers byinterpersonal Thus,ties. it of the former many in underway is which elites, USSR of change the before Besides, states. republics, independent between the elites were more which familiar bilateral of framework isborders, than contacts formerusual the Soviet initially reproduced inthe communication of multilateral patterns the represent time, CISstructures Soviet the the and in the course of the initiatives. promising reforminginstead anddeveloping the project of abandoningin itmore favorof successfuland certain affiliationfeel project,to the to personalcontribution of and byvirtue thus, creating CISstructures the to it.in havepart taken them to policy, Iexpect inforeign make decisions toauthoritative enough This affiliationgo. As forindecision-makers, those who 1990salready the occupied official high positions can be republics formerlet Soviet the to bedifficult expected may it them For empire. Soviet of the successor to resultand toin bethe less efforts,elite flexible representatives aimed by virtuewhen at of their it socialization comes are foreign topolicy necessarilyline,likely without claiming causality. change to be affiliated and orientations those between as well as orientations, inwithpolicy and backgrounds thepersonal the USSR foreign as phenomena ambiguous such between link the establishing asthey allow presentcase, policy of Russia inthe are more appropriate Qualitativemethods methods. statistical application of successful as the isfornotis the enough masterthe thesis.Besides, present acasestudy, and onecase work of limitations the dueto is qualitative, my research is while quantitative, conciliatory), versus Moreover, for those elite members whose postrecruitment socialization took placein took socialization postrecruitment whose elitemembers for those Moreover, older as the policy-making, foreign Russian in matter contemporary age to I expect 33 CEU eTD Collection trend is: elite circulation or elite reproduction, and the answer to this isnot answer the obvious. is:question this elite to and trend or elite reproduction, circulation and in background and careerpatterns foreign therefore theirpolicy orientations. decision-makers beginningof of 21 the the of Yeltsin and Putin into reality. thepost-transition andaccount influence security take and political to times of issues day-to-day on economy, toconcentrate are expected later, high rank positions are indeed whooccupied while their those ofaffairs, ininternational constructing newimage the Russia differenthighwhowere brought by to posts ranking befocused perestroikathe waveof change to on inhistoric analogies in their moreoften decision-making than Besides,others. Iexpect people their may to resort academia andpeople from issues security pay to to special attention expected occupational make background full whileuse maybe with power, bargaining of the people a security to how know to and negotiations in international instruments economic in utilizing proficient more be to businessmen and economists expect I Therefore, in. specialize in and professional isexpectation in line with findingsthe of studies on cognitive biases and framing. Ministry Foreign of Affairs and are constrained by decisionsprevious and choices. This in the career continuous a had who those than line policy foreign in their flexible more policy people I expectbe the foreign business oracademia cominggoals. from to office to foreignthe instruments specificpolicy preferencepriorities for of foreignand the achieving When studying post-Soviet Russian elites, the main isquestion what dominatingthe One can hardly claim that there was a rupture between the 1990s Russian elite and that I expect foreign policy officials to pay more attention to those areas which they are foreign to related changepolicy and expectations, concerning elite Other change, are 3.2. The change in the Russian elitecomposition The changeintheRussian 3.2. 3.2.1. Russian elite change: circulation vs. reproduction st century, a complete replacement of one by another. However, the However, by another. one of replacement complete a century, 34 CEU eTD Collection but they were too young to occupy the USSR, of collapse the before careers their started members elite Contemporary change. high posts. They did not take a direct part in the events managers in industry and agriculture…” (Lane/Ross, 1998:53). journalism, workingin camefrom education, from those asmallergroup and research, early majority the from 1990sRussianelite. Thenthe intelligentsia, the “overwhelming came of with composition the in are sharp contrast representatives service military security and the of domination the present aswell elite, Putin inthe of economists fraction large presence of a backgroundshis, similar to asignificant portion of previousthe elite has The power. retained team Anatoliy of mayor the Sobchak, of andSt. Petersburg, people with occupational Though isPutin tohaveclaimed brought topower withhim hisformer colleagues from the is the elite of shift2000, notof 1991. may be due to different definitions of nomenklatura; besides the focus of the present research inoriginated nomenklatura oldthe Soviet (in Lane/Ross, 1998:53).However, this difference 416), 1990: (Cammack, substantially” and regularly national outcomes affectpolitical their authoritative inpowerful positions organizations andmovements of kind,whatever to 75% i.e. she claims “persons who of are able, that newRussian of political the elite, byvirtue circulation isin Russiain present theOlga 1990s. figures: Khryshtanovskayagives different Party),the Thus, almost combination halfdidnot. the elite reproduction of elite and were members of the Communist Party and were appointed to key administrative positions by elite members belonged to nomenklatura (i.e. to the fraction of the Soviet population, who (Frane/Tomsic, 2002: 437). However, these figures alsomean that while more than half of the half of (51%) members the elitesof in tothe 1993 belonged “overstudiedTomsic, claim eliteinthe scholars post-communist change region, the that who and Frane period. previous the with continuity significant shown has elite era Yeltsin The What we see now is not only occupational, but also to a large extent generational extent a large to also but occupational, only not is now see we What times. post-Yeltsin caseof the the isalso reproduction and circulation The mixture of 35 nomenklatura in the late 1980s” inthelate CEU eTD Collection diplomatic and security missions. anddiplomatic service security previously –atthe time CISestablishmentthe and of in– wereserving development abroad development of the CIS project. Many of those who deal with foreign policy issues nowadays and elaboration initial in the part take not did They policies. foreign and domestic collapseleading the to Union Sovietthe subsequentdevelopmentof of and Russian the “siloviki”, officials military with background,and and security business professionals. The called so the trendsinit: two rolethe the find of out to decision-making elite inorder fromincreased in1.6% 11.3%1993 to in 2002 (in Rivera/Rivera, 2005:7). in theelite representatives business shareof the that report White also and Kryshtanovskaya intoeconomic and political life in numbers” (inunprecedented Rivera/Rivera, 2005:13). 2005: 13).These 2000militocratic results makemoveargue that after them elite “began to inRivera/Rivera, to6.7% 1993 (in opposed as leasteducation” “military some received at Kryshtanovskaya Besides, of 2005: 3). andWhite, according 26.6% elite top-level to political alsocomemilitary sevenfederal from (in the organs and security Rivera/Rivera, districts in 70%of staffof Moreover, representatives the presidential the 2005: 3). (in Rivera/Rivera, 25.1% in in from 1993to 2002 11.2% Russianelite in security increased the representatives study, interviews, on basisthe of biographies and that the observations, militaryshare of and security. andbenefit ofeconomicgreater favor history in common and appealsto idealistic projects vagueintegration be sacrifice ready to may however, they relations, interstate to attitude by pragmatic characterized are necessarily categories toclaim these preposterous that it be may lawyers. Though and as byeconomists Sharon Sharon and DavidRivera have alsostudied thecomposition Russian currentthe of Olga Kryshtanovskaya White and Stephen claimasa resultof their comprehensive The Putin elite is dominated by people from The by Putin elite isdominated militarypeople from backgroundssecurity and as well 3.2.2. Putin era elite: dominant trends 36 CEU eTD Collection (Rivera/Rivera, 2005). The (Rivera/Rivera, is 2005). third by group represented Sergey andIvanov Nikolay which prompted team.Petersburg consists Thethird group of militaryofficials of background, and security some andscholars Andrei to includes influential group Dmitri Kozak, AlexanderMedvedev,Kudrin, Dmitri German Gref, refer Illarionov, to 1999, was today’sdismissed from postinthis 2003 and replaced by Dmitri Medvedev. The second Russianinstance, Alexander Voloshin, who has been the Head of whothe Presidential Administration since rulingareinpublished 2001,whilepresent atinfluenceof the is this ingroup partly decline. for Thus, economists elite asVoloshin, Nicholson’s Surkov,Gleb and Vladislav Pavlovsky. However, article was “militocracy” and872). Thefirstis group representedby whowerepart of those Yeltsinthe team: Alexander lawyers (Nicholson, 2001:871- is advisors decision-makingof bythreecategories influenced center, coming“superpresidentialism” – and his own personal characteristics is considered tobe the principal mostly of Russian political institutional – which isarrangement often as referred to from with himthe as the foundation of his power. According to Martin Nicholson, Putin, who by virtue St. loyal but and politically he brought (Nicholson,reliable 2001:867), and people untainted” loyal services, security the from officials young among from but generation, next the or own 2005: 20). (Rivera/Rivera, evidence “of a sustained influx into Russian the elite from worldthe ofbusiness” is andthat there significant 2005: 19) (Rivera/Rivera, polity” Russian the militarization of data set. As a result whatobtained byKryshtanovskaya and White, applying differentmethods, and used adifferent they found was that They (Sakwain 2005: 4). results the reanalyzed probably been Rivera/Rivera, exaggerated” there is not “much impetus causeof study their wasthe“role ideathatthe of siloviki inPutin’s has administration for alarm over the Putin Putin himself is aleader whocomes “notfrom among politicians either of Yeltsin’s 3.3. Key foreign policy decision-makers of thePutinelite decision-makers Key foreignpolicy 3.3. 37 CEU eTD Collection institutional position deal with CISissues.the their of virtue by who officials and circle; inner Putin’s of part form to claimed are focus on high rank foreign policy makers, including Foreign Ministry officials; people who intendI to make Here, it to and generalizable. sametime atthe less abstract a decision-maker interesting focus to on inmakekey andkeypersonalities, policy-makers toimage of the order concerning major overall and in the trends elite composition the it itsis evident change, part of decision-makingthe of elite Putin the time? after havingNow, seenthedata 13). system (Trenin/Lo: political of peculiarities the weakened Russian significantly dueto the potentially influential such as groups, leaders,opposition regional parties, general public –are explain All 13). make theoutsideit to (Trenin/Lo: other world” foreign policy as to help to much so not is however, role, “their committees, policy foreign parliamentary the for academic circles now have lost theirinfluence onforeign policy-making (Trenin/Lo: 12).As times, Yelstin unlike that, claim also They decision-makers. influential same the practically federal comealso districts from military whichthe background, is indeed symptomatic. in the representatives presidential fiveplenipotentiary of seven out Moreover, Patrushev. 1950 and hasbeen inForeign Service since 1972,workingin andMoscow abroad. Hewas the still one cannot disregard the Ministry officials, when foreignstudying policymaking. dismissto theForeign Ministry aninstitution as of minimal significance” (Trenin/Lo: 12), Foreign Affairs in shaping Russian foreign andpolicy “it hasbecome increasingly fashionable If the decision-making is highly personalised, then what is a typical official, forming official, a typical is what then personalised, highly is decision-making the If list They Nicholson. Martin of that with coincides Lo and Trenin of view of point The The Minister of The Minister AffairsForeign Federation of of Russian the Lavrov in born Sergey was Though doubtis nowadaysby cast some upon analysts rolethe of Ministry the of 3.3.1. Ministry ofForeign Affairs officials 38 CEU eTD Collection in 1950 andin from Academy,1977 graduated USSRForeign the havingTrade served in cooperation. ofinternational charge security of aspects the was negotiations in in is arms for responsible control He 1996-2000 thus Vienna. in a person subunit of the Department of security and disarmament of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and born inhasbeenin 1955and diplomatic service since hehead1977. In1995-1996 was of cooperation. CIS aspectthe of integration to the importance significant attribute not does Russia that clear it makes relations bilateral on and abroad Russians on responsibilities current of scope his of emphasis The Department. Press and Information becametheheadof andthen MiddleEast he Africaandthe 1990s dealtwith In theearly of Minister. Deputy the post histhe achievedin2005with peakof the careerwas Hewasborn inRussian abroad. citizens has1949 and beenin service since diplomatic 1972, postrecruitment socialization can be assumed to be free of at least major Soviet clichés. his Union, and of Soviet afterthe the collapse started career Thus, hisMinistry biographies, available the official web-site of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs at www.mid.ru. their study briefly will I mentioning. worth is also Affairs, Foreign of Ministry the of General Alexander Saltanov, VladimirandAlexander Titov Yakovenko. DokuZavgaev, Director- Andrey Denisov, Grigory Karasin,Alexander Grushko, Sergey Kislyak, Alexander Losyukov, occupying post the of Ministerthe since then(official biography available atwww.mid.ru). deputy inminister 1992-1994 and Permanent Representative UN in in1994-2004, the in 1990-1992, Department Global and Problems Organizations of director International Kislyak is in charge of Russian relations with Latin and North America. He was born was He America. North and Latin with relations Russian of charge in is Kislyak is Hewas in Grushko organizations. charge of and transatlantic European common and relations bilateral with mostly dealing matters, CIS of charge in one is the Karasin Denisov born inwas hasbeen 1952 and inworking Ministry the structures since 1992. Officials currently of occupying positions Deputy Ministers of Foreign Affairs are 39 CEU eTD Collection economicin of problems republics, 1995 he was the chairman of governmentthe of Chechen mostly infederalism.matters, connected socio- 1994-1995hedealt with Thus, Russian with 1940. Hehasin In PhD economics. his course of the careerhewith Russian dealt domestic IAEA, butnot G-8, CIS, the this regional not being project large-scale apriority. international organizations are mentionedofficial inhis biography: NATO,UN, OSCE, Several Affairs. of International Institute State of Moscow the and professor jurisprudence of is in1954.He adoctor born He was cooperation. international aspects of different examples of long-term foreign mission in of course the 1990s.the inSaltanovare also andTitov Deputy 2005. October Sweden. appointed Minister Hewas work incame in to Ministry 1980.In the in 1993-1997 servedabroad Russian the in embassy 2001. having1992-1998 inbeen Russianambassador Jordan. Hewasappointed Deputy in Minister in He been was born Ministry 1946andstructures since has Foreign in 1970,in working the samethe becoming country fully to independent. CIS project and did not witness personally the transition of the CIS states from being parts part2007. Servingin duringmostdidnot take abroad of 1990s he the of of developmentthe the 1990-1992 and served in abroad He 1992-1997. was appointed Deputy Minister in January in inandhas been in Department service since He worked Asian-Pacific 1968. diplomatic the development. in CIS stake the andhasno oneconomic cooperation concentrated diplomatic service since in deputy having minister isthen and been appointed 2003. He thus Doku Zavgaev is Director-General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He was born in born was He Affairs. Foreign of Ministry the of Director-General is Zavgaev Doku Yakovenkois in of charge in Russian participation international the organizations and isTitov in charge of cooperation with European countries. He was born in 1958 and Saltanov is a special representative of the Russian President on the Middle Eastissues. Losyukov is inincooperation Asia-Pacific of charge the born in Hewas region. 1943 40 CEU eTD Collection Security Council of the Russian Federation. In 1999 he became the chairman of the Russian the of chairman the became he 1999 In Federation. Russian the of Council Security in Service and the Federal Secretary headof was appointed the of 1999 the the Security work Administration. In Presidential 1998 Putin he for to the administration. started In 1996 from German Petersburghethe in Democratic Starting worked Republic. city 1991 St. –in serve in security In1985-1990heservedand transferred to abroad services. was state the from In 1975Putin University graduated of Department Legal the of Leningrad State Studies influence. foreign Russian the of pillars the of one moment the at is which diplomacy, energy Commonwealth Independent (www.cis.minsk.by).of States the Counciland(http://www.scrf.gov.ru/), Federation the of (http://www.council.gov.ru/), Security the Council (http://president.kremlin.ru/), Administration of Presidential sites the official the at available are later, discussed briefly biographies, Official himself. President the are claimedpeople haveinner who toform alook atPutin’s circle andto personality the of importantmost decision-makers in Russianowadays. it Thus, atis look necessary those to aspect of international relations. international aspect of economic to the attention special makingpay them education, economic of havethem Most CIS. the with affiliation special no have and Putin Vladimir of presidency the during positions shapingAll than present tothe foreign were line. theRussian of appointed them policy butdue rather following to their rank in occupiedMoscow, or posts major events domestic born in 1950s,andthe inthe they 1990s either served indiplomatic missions farfrom the inpresentpost 2004. Republicin and head of 1995-1996 Chechen the tohisRepublic. Zavgaev wasappointed However, high Foreign Ministry officials are not the only and – allegedly – not the not – allegedly – and only the not are officials Ministry Foreign high However, Vladimir born inPutin has 1952inLeningrad.was PhDin devoted He to economics As one can see from the official biographies, most of these highest rank officials were officials rank highest these of most biographies, official the from see can one As 3.3.2. Vladimir closePutin andhis advisors 41 CEU eTD Collection 1987 and received his in PhD 1990. In1990-1999 he combined lecturing Petersburgin St. inMinister of Finance and wasreappointed 2004. Administration Deputy Ministerand in1997–the first of Finance. Inhe became 2000 Petersburgdeputy mayor.St. of In 1996 he was Deputy appointed Head of Presidential Issues. Since 1990hehas in in Leningrad(St.Petersburg), worked was 1993-1996 firstthe defended of in he hisPhDineconomics, was research doing theSocio-Economic Institute having inAfter He wasborn 1960. Petersburg.he from also“Putin St. and team”, comes Defense. Since 2007 he is firstthe Deputy Chairman of Government. theMinister 2001hewasappointed Security Federation. of Council of In Russian the 1998 he FSB became andinDirector Deputy 1999was appointed Secretary the the of restructured – in SVR (Foreign Intelligence Service) and FSB (Federal Security Service). In retired general-colonel,served intheKGB and who then organization this – after was in 1953inLeningrad Petersburg the and belongs St. to inRussian politics. group Ivanov isa influential mostlist Russianborn Hewas 2001;Trenin/Lo, of politicians(Nicholson, 2005). successor is Sergey TreninIvanov. and Lo, aswell as Martin Nicholson included himin the Anatoly Sobchak, his knowledge of early the Yeltsin years (Trenin/Lo: 10). him”:intelligence officer career,political ups and downs as a deputy Petersburg St. to mayor approach to power and policy shows the imprint of the “many diverse experiences that shaped products of – historical,their professional”, environment cultural, Putin’s and they arguethat Trenin“individualscounterparts. hardly andLoclaim disagreeand are onecan –that - as his statements by regarded officialsguidelines assignalsbyhis and foreign other inreelected 2004. Heisclaimed tobe of center the Russian foreign policy decision-making, President having Governmentof RussianFederation,andthe in 2000was elected been Dmitri Dmitri Medvedev in born was from UniversityLeningrad State 1965. Hegraduated in Alexey Kudrin ismentioned also by Trenin andLo(Trenin/Lo, 2005)among the One of the people in the Putin’s inner circle and often referred to as a potential 42 CEU eTD Collection security issuessecurity cooperation. andeconomic from the CIS and the mayexplain economization of policy in Russian the the the shift CISand attention of organizationpolicy recruitment in the ties interpersonal and personality on emphasis the underlines This to parallelThey also tend to be part of the St. Petersburgregional team, which the President himself comes from.Russian politics. Key mostly decision-makers from come military and economic backgrounds. structures, more efficientwith the CIS states. inbackground major “Gazprom”, connections and player the inRussian with dialogue energy dealing economic with policy foreign and domestic Russian of aspects various upon withinfluence first deputy of of Head Governmentis RussianFederation.the He combines aperson who he isthe 2005 Administration. Since Presidential of he wasHead “Gazprom”.2003-2005 In deputy Head of Presidential Administration. He is chairman of the board of directors of UniversityState with workingin Petersburg Administration.St. Since 2000 he is firstthe 1998 he worked as a Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of andin Federation of Affairs Russian the Foreign asa Minister of 1998 heDeputy worked in worked and in Moscow and then abroad, Soviet the inRussian embassy Spain.1993- In his history.in Hestarted career Affairs the Ministry Foreign of in he 1973. In 1973-1993 tohisposition.appointed current he was 2004 ofFederal In Tax Service. Director Minister of Trade, andTrade, Relations Economic Foreign of Minister as worked having issues, economic with mostly he dealt has PhD ineconomics. He occupied hisfirst high post –deputy inminister – then 1992. Since virtue hisof positionhas influence onmany of aspects Russian policy, bornin was 1950. He Thus, we see the major trends of elite composition reflected inThus, wesee the majorof reflected keyfiguresof composition the trends elite Another famous Ivanov was official, Russian born in Igor in 1945.HehasPhD by who Fradkov, Mikhail Federation Russian the of Government the of Chairman The 3.3.3. Other foreign policydecision-makers and officials incharge ofCIS matters 43 CEU eTD Collection Putin. influencesignificant upon Presidentlivesbut Yeltsin, now in London andPresident opposes have had to whowasclaimed isoligarch, an Berezovsky Boris efficiency. organization’s increase the and to structure to reform the effort asan itwas considered Secretary Executive appointed was Boris Berezovsky Whenin1998 CIS. the of Executive Secretary However, he reform. its comprehensive carry out to necessary deemed itwas when was replaced and did not leavethis post by Boris Berezovskyin 1998. He was one of those who created the CIS organizationthe organization in Hewasreplaced Secretary. Executive CIS then and the Councils, Heads of Governments forIn 1992he coordinator wasappointed of Workingthe of CISHeads the Group andof States good, as has in born Korotchenya,1948. He ineconomics. PhD CISExecutivefirst Ivan was Secretary he was made the first position. institutional deputy his of result by recruited not He deals official andanother with CISasa degree. the Putin, with economic another high official from Petersburg, coming St. by virtue though of being adeputy he was is Mironov chairman. of Thus, post to the reelected beingalso there, legislature Petersburg St. represent to he andin2003 wasreelected Russian parliament the upper chamberof representative of the St. Petersburg Legislative Assembly. He was elected the Chairman of the a as Federation Russian the Assembly of Federal the of Federation of of Council the Petersburg.Assembly In 1998heSt. of member2001 Mironov wasreelected. was elected degrees.Hecamemember topolitics graduate in1994,being elected of Legislative the CIS. Hewasborn ininhas 1953 Leningrad andeconomictechnical, andjurisprudence Russian Federation. the Secretary being Security Council of inthe 1998-2004 asaMinister, the 2004appointed of The choice of officials to deal deal The The choice is CISorganization of the directly with symptomatic. to officials the of Assembly Interparliamentary the of Council the of member a is Mironov Sergey 44 CEU eTD Collection some idea about where he or she wants to take the government, the dilemma is to ensure that is to dilemma the thegovernment, shewhere heto take or wants ideasome about constraints in environmentthe andwork within seeksto them atthewhile same timehaving al.,(Hermann et 2001: 97).According Hermann, to apragmatist “respects political the official is that labels arbitrary tothis these quite or opportunists, although assigning one of and strategists with crusaders, incontrast “pragmatist” label her colleagues and Hermann Pursuiainen, 2000:205). (in them between power of balance the in and bodies decision-making of composition in line withis This benefits. economic and focus on security andits newelite the of pragmatism increased Richard Hermann’s thesis about policy changeinterests. economic promoting of channels efficient Russia as a result ofinissues the framework of are while organizational structures considered CIS, the other by the change now in inthe Russian foreign policy in the region and the emphasis, which is placed on securityorganization or on Russian economic interests. His appointment clarifies the place the CIS has the onstructural of reform toconcentrate isexpected hardly he unlike Berezovsky, domain, policy foreign in experience no and CIS the with affiliation no has he Korotchenya, Unlike the elite. Putin of share the“militocratic” represents heThus, unambiguously in Interior secretary the 1999 and Council of Russian Security the inthe of Federation 2001. in from tohis structures: investigator Ministry the Interior of as Minister appointment of as bea signal. interpreted born Rushailo in was and has1953 sincebeenmaking1972 career choice of Vladimir Rushailo to be the Executive Secretary from 2004 till present day can also The image of the typical Putin high official seems to be close to the be tothe Margaret close one seems highto official imagePutin typical of the The The influx of from decision-makers security and economic results background in the the signal, reform implicit an was appointment Berezovsky’s as way same the In 3.4. The effects of foreign policy elite change 45 CEU eTD Collection is derived from the dependence of the new post-Soviet states states Russian on newfrom of issupplies” energy dependence post-Soviet the the derived as “Russian formerspace leverage the Soviet influencestates, throughout to the neighbouring prices and gas using oil of instances are the elite, Putin inthe fraction of economists growing events. policy foreign and decisions in actions, aswell as statements solutions when making crucial foreign policy These decisions. aretrends in reflected official military andbackgrounds security topay special securityattention to andproblems their people with canalsoexpect One negotiations. in international leverage using economic and benefit analysis and economic specifics they are more professional and more successful in cost with familiar being of by virtue that claim might one practical, and rational necessarily claim moresustainable.instance, for Thus, hardly though one can thateconomists are prove make beliefs a of vague to instead actions foreign policy referparticular to reasonable to assumption the linkabout betweenbackgroundis andbehaviour, strong. too However,is it based onacommon This 8-9). though generalization, 2005: in(Tikhonova Rivera/Rivera, freedom and family value example, for and, rational more necessarily are businessmen authoritarian solutions of (Rivera/Rivera,whileproblems 2005:5), economists and to prone backgrounds arenecessarily military people with to theirpatterns, socialization also whohappen toshare people, connections similar characteristics. well. as It elite political the join to may opportunity an elite economic as businessmen gave economy, also be a recruitmentmarketfree to especially transition insociety, change profound the military,from while the policy, may be and brought instability global that to the elitedomestic numberof agrowing people bringing to the eliteal.,(Hermann et 2001: 97). on the basis some progress is madeagoal steppingtoward without outside the bounds one’s position”of of personal Among the foreign policy events in the CIS region, which partly result from the claim, due would be that, not It are justifiedtrends to both ambiguous. The of effects The exact causality concerning two trends of the elite change is difficult establish. to It 46 CEU eTD Collection CIS organization and does not consider it efficient in promoting Russian interests. feeland notforeign elite, policy new the affiliated with pragmatic of rhetoric who does the interaction bilateral by replaced been have they region, post-Soviet in the line policy foreign the of longer foundation no the are cooperation a common multilateral and past to Appeals spheres. itsuseinboth has benefit, astheproject exhausted for search the and security structures, such as Shanghai Cooperation Organization, provide significant opportunities. institutional seem structures bringunable to solutions efficient tothese problems, other while problem military bases In of Russian inneighbouringetc. their states view, theCISmajor in the thethreatof security region,problems terrorism,the among those drug-trafficking, result of a theas present, also is dominance policy foreign the of securitization time, same the At elite. policy of foreign the military Russian the into elitebusinessmen and economists of influx the of in a result as line decision-making. policy foreign Russian the of pragmatism growing Thesethe to due possible made were policy eliteforeign the of concentrate on economization time same and atthe disputes of economic Such politicization region. CIS the Belarusian 2007). pipeline (Saivetz, significantincrease in the amount Belarus had to pay and in Russia gaining a 50% stake in the involvedwhich also oil Theand natural resulted pricingdispute this of gas. resolution ina instance of leverageusing energy wasthe Russian disputewith Belarus in December 2006, AnotherOrange in the Russian 2007). (Saivetz, revolution Ukrainecontrary to interests Observersdeal link negotiated. with dispute victory was this preceding energy the the of flow the but“Gazprom” priceadjustment, the stopped postpone until of a compromising gas natural askedto pricegas.Ukraine pay for world the “Gazprom” to Ukraine demanded in place. 2007).Thus, (Saivetz, took energydispute Russian-Ukrainian 2005-2006 aserious There is no place for the CIS integration project in Russian foreign policy, based on based policy, foreign in Russian integration project CIS the is no for place There in policies energy politicized Russian of examples numerous the of two just are These 47 CEU eTD Collection Federation in duplicating regional structures, decline in the share of budgetary on budgetary expenses shareof decline in the structures, in regional Federation duplicating Russian the of involvement growing statements, official in the disappointment of expressions change, in changeimportant Among the regional Russian indicators strategy.of the and signs this namely 19 be not should signifies used anymore Report, an March Such a statement (News 2007). the declinecountry” “post-soviet term the saidthat and organization CIS the of further existence the in the Russiancircumstances. interestconsideringwithout stable as taken was policy-making foreign the of environment towards external the simplicity foreignthe policy. However, generalizations should be done carefully,the asCIS for the sake of with itdealing fraction of only the than rather in general elite decision-making to the respect project,possibilitycomprehensivelimited andnot to CISregion,the while the elite changeis alsopresentin are the oftheory. elite and analysis policy foreign together the decision-makersisfor and researchThenovelty the inbringing work the relevant decisions question. of events policy foreign the and discourse policy foreign Russian analyzing on as well as policy, Russian in elites post-Sovietthe period and on existingthe literature on Russian foreign a as of the relies studies comprehensive the Theon work achievement. channel policy of goals actingsignificance its lost has organization CIS the while priority, a still is region CIS The differently same. the a large extent to remain aspirations and goals foreign policy Russian as be tactical, change in the composition of the Russian foreign policy-making elite. Iconsider the change to under from organization the results States of Commonwealth Independent the towards Federation different In March 2007 the secretary of the Russian Security Council Igor Ivanov questioned Council Igor Russian Security of In March secretary the 2007 the is foreign change asthe policy canbework generalized, present the of The results The major conclusion of the present research is that the policy change of the Russian Conclusion 48 CEU eTD Collection and shift of attention and resources in favor of other initiatives and projects in the region, less to them by the Russian transition to market economy. the political businessmen eliteprovided opportunities influxto the arethe and economists of elite is the intelligence in Russian the “militocrats” of so-called the share increased the for reasons of One the region. service background CIS in the policy foreign the of securitization and economization of growing in the results the President himself. Amonghas been underway since the new president Vladimir Putin was theelected in 2000, and this trend reasonsinflux This elite. policy-making foreign for Russian the into businessmen and economists as well anddependentindependent variables these expectationsquantifiable. are not both of peculiarities duetothe be though confirmed, seem to CISorganization the towards impactthe investigation. about of elite change Majorexpectations Russianpolicy the on further for basis as forthe granted taken are assumptions theory elite main the research its analysis In preferences focus with on actors’ anddecision-making presentthe procedures. professional achievement. Besides, approach agency-oriented is in common foreign policy where selectionRussianis where the keyforeignPresidentpolitics, the considered and policy decision-maker on agency and personalities isjustifiedof decision-makers by lowthe institutionalization of emphasis toSuch policy-making. foreign the in individuals of role the to officialimportance significant positionsresearch. present is variable isof thepolicy the it which dependent the was possible shift, to track indicators often On basis these the of member-states. CIS the with bilateral relations the of economization based Affairs,on interpersonal displacement Foreign of Ministry the theCISwith of Ministry the of merger the activities, CIS-related the of a reformer ties from ratherthe CIS Executive than Secretary position, growing One of the consequences is the decline of the Russian interest in CISorganization interest the Russian the of is decline the consequences One the of To sum isup, there aninflux of peoplethe with military and security backgrounds, as The factor is explanatory represented by change, elite the which implies attributing 49 CEU eTD Collection the member-states’ leaders member-states’ the meet to regularlyissues. and discuss Nevertheless, urgent Iexpect butit for maygivesbe an integration opportunity notUSSR republics.It aproject, successful organization this as completely, it abandon to still interests Russian in the not is it question, isunder hasefficiency not fullyCIS the if Even organization. outlived the of dissolution in the result not will it believe I However, its use as a forum of communication of the in discourse. revealed official the former not is and personal is it as policy, foreign Russian the of pragmatism often-mentioned the than track to difficult more is factor this but development, and creation its in involvement lack personal the of to CIS due with the affiliation lack of personal the CISproject: the towards interestsay – decline of explaining –psychologicalsoto the factor moreis one also from the previous elite, and this gives rise to a new dominant foreign policyhand. paradigm.other the on line, policy foreign Thereresulting the and hand, one the on patterns, orientation of linkthe between changethe of elite composition backgroundand the dominant and implies thepresence which consideration, in caseunder the present is pattern acertain there reveal. is However, difficultisto and nottangible backgrounds, and occupational educational and the foreign. Moreover, the notion of orientations, presumably resulting from particular of domestic border the atthe located whichare constraints, and opportunities and preferences, interests of combination sophisticated the with deals one policy in foreign as establish, to hard bilateral contacts. interaction to multilateral from switch and goals political achieve to instruments economic of use active the to resort makers Soviet region and ensure in Russian post- the interests national promote in to Moreover, results. order and concrete the Russian efficiency of in terms promising more but positionmembership, and scope of in terms comprehensive as a regional power, Russian foreign policy- I expect the present decline of the Russian interest in the CIS to remain persistent. in CISto the interest Russian the decline of present the I expect them differentiating characteristics, makers sharesimilar foreign policy The present in caseis in the present making andparticularly foreign causality Generally, policy 50 CEU eTD Collection dominant Russian elite on the basis of particular examples. particular of basis the on elite Russian dominant the with policy foreign Russian current the link to literature existing in the attempts few very are field, asthere tothe iswork contribution auseful present the Nevertheless, generalizable. more tomake results research the is for further a need there Thus, preferences. actors’ and beliefs policy foreign as matters non-tangible such via is established shift policy resulting the and pattern dominant the between link the however, pattern; overall the in background policy change. Elite change is more quantifiable in terms of analyzing the share of a particular and totrack events and actions behindcertain find rationale to the state, of “blackbox” the the problem study.Foreign under is matterpolicy a to deal complicated with; itis hard toopen neighbors. with especiallyinrelations bilateral power, bargaining increased leverage its economic and foreignRussian makers inpolicy thenear will use future continue to actively Russian that believe I Moreover, instance. for Community, Economic Eurasian asthe such initiatives, other of development the to CIS direction the from resources some transfer to Russia The present research has certain limitations resulting from of from specificity the the resulting limitations hasresearch certain The present 51 CEU eTD Collection http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/pdf/research/rep/Pcmcfp.pdf Chatham House, 8November 2006. Experts’ Russian Foreign Policy Roundtable / 454. jhu.edu/programs/res/papers/Coulloudon.pdf 2007.- http://www.president.kremlin.ru/sdocs/appears.shtml?type=63372 Annual Presidential Addresses tothe Federal Assembly Russianthe of Federation 2001- Crisis (2nd edition), New York: Longman, 1999. Allison, Graham Philip.T.; Zelikow, Essenceof ExplainingtheDecision: CubanMissile Science Review Allison, Graham Conceptual ModelsT., and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Stein. Janice A framework for research on foreign policy behavior / by Michael Brecher, Blema Steinberg, Frane Adam Tomsi. Adam Frane Matevz and By countries. in post-socialist performance and politico-economic Elite (re)configuration and International Security in Russia and the new and InternationalSecurity inRussiaandthenew States ofEurasia / elite post-Yeltsin the of dichotomy The Valerie. Coulloudon, Western Political Quarterly beliefs. policy foreign elite of structure The R. Keith Billingsley, O.; William Chittick, Studies Quarterly policy analysis. in problem foreign agency-structure The Walter. Carlsnaes, Review paradigm. of newelite the assessment Paul. Acritical Cammack, Science American JournalofPolitical ispolicyimportant Thomas Brunk, G.How eliteMinehart, Gregory turnover to change? G.; May, 2007). , Vol.55, No.3 (Jun.,, Vol.55, 1990),pp.415-420. The JournalofConflict Resolution , Vol. 63, No. 3(September, Vol. 63, 689-718. 1969),pp. , Vol.36, No.3 (Sep.,1992),, Vol.36, pp.245-270. , Vol. 42, No.2 (Jun., 1989), pp. 201-224. Europe-Asia Studies Europe-Asia Sources and Literature and Sources , Vol.28,No.3 (August, 1984),pp.559-569. References (last accessed (last 27May, 2007). 52 , Vol.13,No.1 (March, pp.75-101. 1969), Summary of presentations anddiscussions of Summary , Vol.54, No.3 (May,435- No.3 pp. , Vol.54, 2002), (last accessed (last 27May, 2007). Project onSystemicChange American Sociological (last accessed 27 (last .- http://www.sais- American Political International The – . CEU eTD Collection http://www.ng.ru/cis/2001-02-07/5_soviet.html Vol.48, No.4 (Jun.,Vol.48,1996), pp.535-549. http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/8013.cfm#2 Supplement Analytical and JRL Research Kryshtanovskaya, White, Olga; Stephen. militocracy Putin’s in/ Summary “Putin’s generals”, Asia Studies Russian to nomenklatura From elite. White, Stephen. Soviet Olga; Kryshtanovskaya, c9497abdd66f.html 2005.-http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/08/0145c8d7-db3d-4734-8917-August 30, revivenoticesLiz. moribund serveto the death Fuller, organization. CIS: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/doctrine/econcept.htm Foreign Policy of Concept Russianthe Federation, 2000.- Jeanne A.K. Hey, Patrick J. Haney. Prentice-Hall, Neack, Laura By Inc., 1995, 319 p. generation. second its in change and continuity analysis: policy Foreign Lane, David. The transformation of Russia: the role of the political elite. CIS”). the close to Russia decided of Council Security SNG”(“The zakryt’ Rossii reshil Bezopasnosti “Sovet Alan. Kasaev, Janis, Irving L.,Groupthink (2nded.)Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1982. of political leaders. Hermann,G. Explaining behaviorforeign Margaret policy usingthepersonal characteristics International Washington, D.C.,Peace, 1999,265 p. Martha Brill by Commonwealth/ States of Independent andthe Getting regional wrong: cooperation it Olcott, Review Mershon InternationalStudies Anders AslundGettinghold on a moving foreign target: policy change /Review by Risse-Kappen.Thomas and Sherman Schenkman1985,Inc., 211p. Books, analysis, statistical cross-national a policy: W.foreign in factors Domestic S. Daniel Garnett.Geller, Carnegie Endowment for , Vol.48,No.5, 1996, pp.711-733. (last accessed (last 27May, 2007). International Studies Quarterly Nezavisimaya gazeta (1995), 39, pp.297-299. (1995), 53 (last accessed (last 27May, 2007). (last accessed 27May, (last 2007). , Vol.24,No.1 (Mar.,1980), pp.7-46. ( (last accessed 27May, 2007). Independent Newspaper , January , January 2004.- Europe-Asia Studies Radio FreeRadio ), 2001.- ), Europe- Europe , , CEU eTD Collection 2004, pp.7-8.- http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/pdf/research/rep/PutinMar04.pdf2004, pp.7-8.- Lo, Bobo. Towards a new Russian foreign policy? foreign Russian new a Towards Bobo. Lo, (last accessed 27May, 2007). http://www.eurasianhome.org/xml/t/expert.xml?lang=ru&nic=expert&pid=651 membership its vyhoda“Ugrosa of threat Georgia izSNG”/”The withdrawing Gruzii Levchenkov, Alexander. accessed 27May, 2007). Nezavisimaya gazeta Lavrov, Sergey. “Evolutionary reform as a goal”. Speech at the State Duma session, 2007. May, 2007). http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/pdf/research/rep/BPnis0207.pdf pp. 1-10.- States”. Independent Nikitin,Alexander. The end of the “post-Soviet space”: the changing orientations of the New 867-884. International Affairs Nicholson, Martin. pendulum Putin’s Russia:slowing stopping the without clock. the 27 May, 2007). 19March News Report, http://www.infoniac.com/news/russia-nato.html 2007.- 1-55. March, TheFree New York: James G.APrimeron Decision Making.Press, 1994.Ch.1.pp. (Jan.,2001), pp.7-31. policy. foreign Russia’s of realism The C. Allen Lynch, accessed 27May, 2007). House Bobo.Lo, Evolution regression?or Russian foreign policy in secondPutin’s term. Oxfordof Handbook Political OUP,2003.pp. Psychology.254-284. Oxford: Levy, Jack S., “Political27 May, 2007). Psychology and Foreign Policy” in: Sears, David O. et. al. (eds.), , 2006–pp.57-77.- http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/pdf/research/rep/R0506Lo.pdf (Royal Institute of International Affairs), Vol.77, No.4 (Oct., 2001), pp. of (Oct.,2001), (Royal Affairs),No.4 International Vol.77,Institute Russian and Eurasia Briefing Paper Russian andEurasiaBriefing ( Independent Newspaper 54 in the CIS”.- ).- http://www.ng.ru/printed/76874).- Chatham House BriefingNote Europe-Asia Studies Europe-Asia , Chatham House, February House, , Chatham 2007, (last accessed 27 accessed (last (last accessed (last (last accessed (last , Vol.53, No.1 Chatham , March (last (last CEU eTD Collection http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/moynihan/programs/ces/pcconfpdfs/Rivera.pdf Sep.30 Syracuse University, bourgeois? or militocratic Putin: under elite Russian The W. David Rivera, Werning; Sharon Rivera, Asia Studies Werning.Rivera,Russia: Elites in Sharon Post-communist achanging of guard? the No.2 (Apr.,Vol.29, 1999),pp.323-343. Rigby, Newtopelitesin T.H. for Russian old politics. Cliffs,246 p. NewJersey, 1976, Putnam, Robert D. The comparative study2000, 239p. of Ashgate, political theory. relations international and Policy Foreign Russian elites. Christer. Pursuiainen, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood (last accessed 27May, 2007). called CIS”). familyimeni“RaspadayuschayasyaAlexander. semya Pogorelsky,po apart SNG” („Falling http://www.globalaffairs.ru/numbers/23/6693.html 2007). http://web.mit.edu/ssp/seminars/wed_archives_07spring/Saivetz.htm Program Seminar Both. or Politics or Business Policies: Energy Russia's Carol. Saivetz, http://www.gks.ru/free_doc/2006/b06_13/24-08.htm 1995-2005. data Russian foreign trade (Oct.,No.5 1995),pp.639-668. Anderson Richard by Yershova, Natasha 1993 / Hanley,Eric Russia – old winein a newbottle? The circulation and reproduction of Russian elites, 1983- May, 2007). policy”). vneshney “AuditSafranchuk, Russianforeign (“Thethe auditing politiki” I.A. of rossiyskoy Post-communist stateandsociety: and transnational national politicsconference Rossiya v global’noypolitike , Vol.52,No.3 (May, pp.413-432. 2000), RIA News , 19.02.2007.- http://www.rian.ru/analytics/20070219/60963911.html, 19.02.2007.- (February (February 28, 2007).- – Oct. 1, 2005. pp. 1-25. 55 ( (last accessed 27May, 2007). Russia inglobalpolitics (last accessed 27May, (last 2007). Federal StateStatisticsService British Journal ofPoliticalScienceBritish Journal . Theory andSociety . Theory (last accessed 27 May, (last accessed 27 accessed (last Security Studies ), 2006.-), , Vol.24, Europe- .- - , , CEU eTD Collection http://www.carnegie.ru/en/pubs/media/69778.htm Trenin, Dmitri. Moscow’s realpolitik. Moscow’s Dmitri. Trenin, 368047 http://www.jamestown.org/print_friendly.php?volume_id=401&issue_id=2974&article_id=2 Monitor Torbakov, Igor.Russian Kremlinstrategists debate integration.policies on CIS 368534 http://www.carnegie.ru/en/pubs/briefings/Briefing-2006-04-web_en.pdf Center Briefing Carnegie Moscow challenges. Russia’s with is coping elite Russian the how legacy: Putin’s Lilia. Shevtsova, http://www.scrf.gov.ru/documents/55.html Security Council of the Russian Federation /Summary of the official meeting. July 19, 2004.- (last accessed 27May, 2007). Discussion Papers renewed Putin: / Stanislav. Russia’sforeign “CISproject” under Secrieru,policy stagnation and survival. Sakwa, Richard; Webber, Commonwealth Mark.The 1991-1998: States, Independentof http://www.jamestown.org/print_friendly.php?volume_id=401&issue_id=3076&article_id=2 20, 2004).- Vol.1,Issues (Sep. 88 Torbakov, Igor. Kremlin still lacks a clear-cut strategy for the CIS. Higley, Jan Pakulski and Wlodzimierz Wesolowski. Macmillan Press, Ltd, 1998, pp. 34-66. http://gov.cap.ru/hierarhy.asp?page=./25/11453/37921/40008/81092/81097 1995.- member-states, CIS inthe with Relations Federation ofthe Russian Course Strategic May, 2007). http://www.cis.minsk.by/main.aspx?uid=180 1991- States, of Independent of Commonwealth the The Charter May, 2007). Cameron Ross. and Lane David By renewal”. and recruitment 1991-95: elites, political Russian The In (last accessed 27May, 2007). (last accessed 27May, 2007). , Vol.1, Issues 24 (June 04,2004).- Issues, Vol.1, 24(June , January , January http://www.ucm.es/info/unisci/UNISCI10Secrieru.pdf 2006.- Postcommunist elites anddemocracy in EasternEurope Europe-Asia Studies (last accessed (last 27May, 2007). , Vol.51, No.3 , Vol.51, No.3 (May, pp.379-415. 1999), (last accessed (last 27May, 2007). 56 , Vol.8, Issue 4, June 2006.- , Vol.8,Issue 4, Carnegie Moscow Carnegie Moscow Center (last accessed 27 May, 2007). Eurasia Daily Monitor (last accessed 27 accessed (last (last accessed 27 , 09.02.2004.- , ed. By John Eurasia Daily UNISCI , CEU eTD Collection CIS leavesCIS much beto desired).- http://www.psj.ru/text/200612201323.htm Zatulin, Konstantin. Politika Rossii v SNG ostavlyaet zhelat’ luchshego (Russian policy in the President of the Russian Federation.- http://www.president.kremlin.ru Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation.- http://www.mid.ru Eurasian Economic Community.- http://www.evrazes.com/ Council of Federation of the Russian Federal Assembly.- http://www.council.gov.ru/ Commonwealth Independent http://www.cis.minsk.byof States.- 1991 Persian Gulf Crisis. Yetiv, Making thein A.,Testing GovernmentPolitics Model: Steve USDecision the 1990- Speechatthe1997. CISsummit, Yeltsin, Boris. Policymaking (Summer, 2001),pp.83-131. and Leaders, Groups, Understanding Coalitions: People inForeign the andProcesses http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/178ehxfz.asp Carnegie Center decision-making. policy foreign Russian of landscape The Bobo. Lo, Dmitri; Trenin, Newspaper M. Shaw. Korany, Baghat Timothy Preston, G. Hermann, Thomas Margaret By individuals. effectsof the leadspowerful Who matters: accessed 27May, 2007). formerrepublics together. Soviet the hold can’t States Independent of Commonwealth the apart: fall Things Richard. Weitz, accessed 27May, 2007). of Politics from lessons Mosca and Pareto. elite”: “political Alan.Theconcept Zuckerman, May, 2007). Collective Security Treaty http://www.dkb.gov.ru/ Organization.- Collective Security Treaty , Vol.39,No.2 (May, pp.324-344. 1977), ), 2000.- http://www.ng.ru/printed/13200), , 2005. – http://www.carnegie.ru/en/pubs/books/9200doklad_fin.pdf, 2005.– Security Studies Official Web-sites , Vol. 11, No. 2 , Vol. 11, (Winter 2001),pp.50-84. 57 International Studies Review The DailyStandard (last accessed 27May, 2007). Nezavisimaya gazeta (last accessed 27 (last , 01.18.2007.- , Vol.3, No.2, ( Independent The Journal (last Moscow (last CEU eTD Collection Shanghai Cooperation Organization.- http://www.sectsco.org/ Organization.- Shanghai Cooperation Security Council of the Russian Federation.- http://www.scrf.gov.ru/ 58