Cristian Nitoiu

Russia's foreign policy towards North Africa in the wake of the Arab Spring

Since coming to power in 2000, Russian president Vladimir Putin has tried to construct a narrative of regaining Russias status as a major global power. However, in practice the Kremlin has yet to create a coherent strategy or achieve a sense of a co-ordinated foreign policy. While North Africa has not been at the forefront of this narrative, recently Moscow has intensified its diplomatic links and cooperation with the regimes in the region. The Arab Spring presented Russian policy makers with a series of challenges regarding the uncertainty of the developments in the region, but also with renewed economic opportunities. This profile analyses Moscows relationships with the countries in North Africa (Libya, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria) in the wake of the Arab Spring. In each case the Kremlin aimed to take advantage of the new opportunities without really being guided by an overarching strategy for the region. However, Russia increasingly seems to be keen to position itself in the region as an alternative to the EU or the US, not least in light of the current war in Ukraine.

Reconceptualizing ‘Cooperation’ in EU-Russia Relations

Abstract This paper argues that although the EU is yet to develop a common policy towards Russia, ‘cooperation’ with Russia stems from a pattern of enhanced bilateral relations with Moscow that most member states have sought to develop. These enhanced relations have been characterized by strong economic and energy security ties modelled on the approaches of big EU players such as Germany and France. Moreover, such approaches have impeded any solid practical promotion of the EUs norms and values both in Russia and its Eastern Neighbourhood – or any coherent CSDP actions, for that matter. This has happened although, rhetorically, states such as France and Germany present a highly normative discourse about the EUs role in its Eastern Neighbourhood. A second goal of this paper is to evaluate the way this pattern of ‘cooperation’ impacts on the EUs policy towards its Eastern Neighbourhood and on the geopolitics of the region. Consequently, the paper suggests that the practice of developing enhanced relations with Russia opens the way for Moscow to be viewed by the EUs Eastern neighbours as a power that can offer short-term solutions to pressing problems. At the same time, the shared framework for ‘cooperation’, which seems to inform the behaviour of most EU member states, de facto legitimizes Russias bid to have the Eastern Neighbourhood under its sphere of influence.

The European Parliament's diplomacy : a tool for projecting EU power in times of crisis? : the case of the Cox–Kwasniewski mission

The aim of this paper is to shed light on the way the European Parliaments diplomacy affects EU power, particularly during times of crisis. The analysis is focused on the Cox–Kwasniewski mission that the Parliament sent to Ukraine in 2012–13. Based on interviews and existing literature, we discuss the genesis and the development of the mission and then evaluate its impact. We argue that the mission with time became a key diplomatic instrument and enabled EU power projection by giving momentum to the promotion of the EUs approach towards Ukraine, which was already wavering due to the deadlock over the Association Agreement between Kyiv and Brussels and then due to President Yanukovychs refusal to sign the agreement.

The European Public Sphere: Myth, Reality or Aspiration?

The discussion about the public sphere only began to have significant relevance within the setting of the European Union in the middle of the 1990s when a growing degree of attention was directed towards European integration and the role of national and transnational media in providing thrust for it. Since then, the notion of the public sphere has been seen as a central feature of European democracies, shaping the coherence of political systems and decision-making processes. There has also been a tendency in the literature to perceive the European public sphere (EPS) as having positive effects on the EU by endowing it with legitimacy and providing a space where its institutions and leaders can be made more transparent and accountable. What is disputed throughout this scholarship is the possibility of creating an overarching European public sphere that would act as a transnational discursive space uniting various communication fluxes and actors from all strata of society. However, the answers provided by scholars for this puzzle are at most ambiguous or undecided and seem to be torn between viewing the EPS as aspiration, myth or reality.

Towards conflict or cooperation? The Ukraine crisis and EU-Russia relations

Abstract The Ukraine crisis and Russia’s contribution to it have raised numerous concerns regarding the possible emergence of a new ‘Cold War’ in Europe. At the same time, Ukraine’s popular choice and enthusiasm for European integration expressed clearly on the streets of Kyiv seem to have caused Russia to adopt a (neo)revisionist attitude. In this context, relations between Russia and the EU (and the West for that matter) have been limited, frozen and directed on path towards conflict. This article analyses how the traditional dichotomy between conflict and cooperation in EU–Russia relations was replaced by conflict in the context of the Ukraine crisis. The article contends that the breakdown of the symbolic and peaceful cohabitation between the EU and Russia has been influenced by the fact that both actors have chosen to ignore key tensions that characterized their post-Cold War interactions. The article identifies three such tensions: the first emphasizes divisions between EU member states and their impact on coagulating a common EU approach towards Russia; the second (geopolitical) tension highlights the almost mutually exclusive way in which the EU and Russia’s security interests have developed in the post-Soviet space; finally, the third contends that a clash of values and worldviews between the EU and Russia makes conflict virtually unavoidable.

Aspirations to Great Power Status: Russia’s Path to Assertiveness in the International Arena under Putin

This article focuses on the literature developed in the last few years on Russia’s foreign policy by exploring six books which can be thought as representative: two general books on Russian foreign policy, one that focuses on security and intervention, another on Russia’s soft power and influence in the post-Soviet space, and two others on Russia’s relationship with the West. There is an underlying idea in the six books that Russian foreign policy has been deeply marked by Putin’s leadership. Russia’s foreign policy has been continuously evolving since 2000 towards assertiveness, through which Putin has aimed to regain Russia’s lost status of being a great power. In the last few years and especially since Putin came to power for the third time, there has been a proliferation of books on Russian foreign policy. The value of the six books lies in the way they chart the path towards assertiveness in Putin’s quest to put Russia again on the map as a great power. Allison R (2013) Russia, the West, and Military Intervention. Oxford: Oxford University Press. De Haas M (2011) Russia’s Foreign Security Policy in the 21st Century: Putin, Medvedev and Beyond. Abingdon: Routledge. Gvosdev NK and Marsh C (2013) Russian Foreign Policy: Interests, Vectors, and Sectors. Los Angeles, CA: CQ Press. Leichtova M (2014) Misunderstanding Russia: Russian Foreign Policy and the West. Farnham, MD: Ashgate. Sherr J (2013) Hard Diplomacy and Soft Coercion: Russia’s Influence Abroad. London: Royal Institute for International Affairs/Chatham House. Tsygankov AP (2012) Russia and the West from Alexander to Putin: Honor in International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Still entrenched in the conflict/cooperation dichotomy? EU–Russia relations and the Ukraine crisis

ABSTRACT The article highlights that the traditional conflict/cooperation dichotomy which characterised the dynamic of European Union (EU)–Russia relation during the post-Cold War period has remained stable throughout the Ukraine crisis. It identifies a pattern of continuity rather than change in the main characteristics of the traditional conflict/cooperation dichotomy: the post-Cold War order on the European continent, values and worldviews, perceptions of self and other, and policies towards each other and post-Soviet space. Secondly, in tune with neoclassical realism the article aims to account for the relative persistence of the conflict/cooperation dichotomy. It argues that the dynamic of EU–Russia relations remained rather stable due to the fact that neither the EU nor Russian foreign policy has undergone major transformations (of both power, scope and organisation) that would provide incentive or constrains for a complete overhaul of the conflict/cooperation dichotomy. Moreover, the article claims that the relative stability of world politics since the start of the Ukraine crisis has not given any the EU and Russia incentives – or constrained them – to seek to change the overall dynamic of their relationship.

Russia and the EU’s quest for status: the path to conflict in the post-Soviet space

This article suggests that both the EU and Russia sought to achieve the great power status by enhancing their presence in the post-Soviet space. Conflict has arisen as the status seeking efforts of the two have been transformed into a dangerous zero-sum game. Moscow’s actions in Ukraine prompted the EU to adopt a more conflictual attitude, where it now actively aims to counteract Moscow’s influence. This transformed Russia and the EU’s status seeking efforts into a deep security dilemma. Both actors perceive that maintaining their influence in the region is crucial for maintaining their status. Rather than seeking a mutually and sustainable agreement that would give equal importance to Ukraine’s interests, the EU and Russia draw more red lines, and revert to cold war rhetoric. In the short term this behaviour will put their status seeking efforts even more at odds with each other and deepen the conflict.

Supporting the EU’s Approach to Climate Change: The Discourse of the Transnational Media Within the ‘Brussels Bubble’

Abstract The Union’s global climate change policy has been widely seen as an expression of its normative power, where it is committed to act through multilateral frameworks in order to tackle the effects of changes in the climate and safeguard the future of people around the world. Internally, the EU’s approach to climate change is complemented by high levels of support from citizens. This article explores another internal source of support for the EU’s leadership in global climate change policy, namely the media. The focus here is on the transnational media’s reporting and coverage of the Copenhagen summit, which is widely considered to be one of the key points in the development of global climate change policy. The article shows that within the ‘Brussels bubble,’ the transnational media supported through its reporting the EU’s ambitious agenda in global climate change policy around the time of the Copenhagen summit.

The Influence of External Actors on Foreign Policy in the Post-Soviet Space

SINCE THE COLLAPSE OF THE SOVIET UNION, THE FOREIGN POLICIES of the post-Soviet states have undergone significant and sometimes contradictory transformations. External actors have played a crucial role in this process. In their bid to influence the regional order and promote their vision of international politics, the United States and, later, the Russian Federation and the European Union (EU) invested significant resources to shape the domestic and foreign policies of the post-Soviet states (Bechev 2015; Nitoiu 2017). In turn, most states in the post-Soviet space were left with little choice but to develop multivector foreign policies and strike a fine balance between their own interests and those of more powerful external actors (Hey 2003; Browning 2006; Gnedina 2015). This context has affected not only the way the post-Soviet states have defined their foreign policy goals but also the tools they developed to pursue their interests. Post-Soviet foreign policies have been furthermore shaped by values and norms that external actors have sought to promote across the region (Averre 2009; Delcour 2013a). It is precisely in this context that the present special issue discusses how external actors—that is, the United States, Russia and the European Union—have affected the development of the foreign policies of the post-Soviet states in the last 25 years. In the early post-Soviet era, the United States supported the regional states in their dual transitions to economic marketisation and democratisation. This approach was based on a longstanding US policy principle, namely that which considered the advancement of democracy as a step towards the promotion of global peace and stability: as such, the United States had a duty to aid the new post-Soviet nations (Tolstrup 2013). The United States hence invested significant resources to building the capacity of the post-Soviet states, in order to replace their old Soviet identities with the establishment of liberal democratic nations that would align more naturally with the West. US efforts primarily entailed supporting civil society groups, investing in infrastructure, funding exchange programmes for policy stakeholders and students, and encouraging US companies to invest in the region. In the 1990s, the State Department and other policy institutions, with the support of numerous US universities and think tanks, invested heavily to build the diplomatic expertise of the new post-Soviet states, while the US government more broadly had an interest in investing in their energy infrastructure and extractive industries in order to integrate them into the liberal economic system (Stent 2015). As the 1990s progressed, however, the post-Soviet states largely failed to democratise and, in some cases (Belarus, Moldova, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan),