The Reading Of Current Geopolitical Interactions Forces The Researcher And Those Interested To Dive Deep Into The Structure Of The Strategic Thinking Of Major Powers That Are Reshaping The Features Of The Contemporary World. At The Heart Of These Powers, Russia Emerges As A Player That Sparks Much Controversy And Analysis. In This Context, The Book “Russian Grand Strategy: The Quest for Major Power Status and a Multipolar World Order”, Published By Cambridge University Press By The Researcher Ivan U. Kłyszcz, Comes To Provide A Reading Of The Codes Of Russian Foreign Policy Since The Dissolution Of The Soviet Union In 1991 Until The Present Moment, With A Focus On The Russian-Ukrainian War And Its Comprehensive Repercussions On The Structure Of The International System.
The Author Begins With A Fundamental Question That Seems Like A Paradox That Haunts Policymakers And Analysts Alike: How Was Moscow Able To Adopt A Foreign Policy With Ambitious Global Dimensions After 1991, Despite The Severe Restrictions And Limited Resources It Suffered From Compared To The Enormous Power Enjoyed By The Former Soviet Union? The Answer To This Question Lies Not Only In Monitoring Isolated Diplomatic Or Military Movements, But Basically Requires Understanding The Intellectual And Theoretical Pillars Underlying These Movements, Which The Author Calls “Grand Strategy” Based On The Principle Of “Multipolarity”. This Strategy Does Not Represent Just A Political Slogan Or A Propaganda Tool, But Is Rather A Comprehensive Vision Of The Universe And Of International Relations That Governs Russia’s View Of Itself, The West, And The Roles Of Other Major Powers In Managing Global Affairs.
Ivan Kłyszcz Believes That What Distinguishes The Current Russian Ambition From The Long Historical Endeavors Of Tsarist Or Soviet Russia To Obtain Major Power Status Is The Nature Of The Grand Strategy Adopted By Moscow Since The Mid-1990s. This Strategy Consists Of A Set Of Firm Principles That Reflect Russia’s Deep Perceptions Of The International System; Moscow Absolute Believes That The World Must Not Be Managed By A Single Dominant Pole, Specifically The United States Of America, And That The Inevitable Rise Of New Poles In Different Regions Of The World Represents A Historical Opportunity For Russia To Restore Its Central Position As The Leader Of The “Eurasian” Bloc And As A Balancing And Limiting Force For Western Influence.
Through A Rigorous Interdisciplinary Methodology That Combines The Frameworks Of International Relations, Space-Time Theories Of Grand Strategy And Great Power Competition, With The Rich Literature Of History, Political Science And Foreign Policy Analysis, The Book Deconstructs The Terrain Of This Russian Vision. The Author Argues That Russia In Fact Lacks Fragmented Or Separate Regional Strategies, But Rather, Just As Was The Case During The Cold War Era, Employs A Strategy Of A Unified And Comprehensive Global Nature. This Holistic View Makes Any Russian Move In Africa, The Middle East, Or Latin America An Integral Part Of Its Grand Confrontation With The West, And Not Merely Tactical Policies Directed At Those Regions Individually.
The Russian Concept Of Multipolarity, As Explained By The Book, Involves Semi-Religious Or Messianic Dimensional Dimensions Linked To Russia’s Historical Role In The World. Moscow Does Not Present Itself As A Normal Country Defending Its Narrow National Interests, But Rather Formulates Its Foreign Policy Within The Framework Of A Grand Global Narrative In Which It Claims To Lead The World Toward Liberation From Western Unilateral Hegemony. This Narrative Is Based On The Idea That Western Liberal Values Are Not Universal Values, But Rather A Cultural Particularity That The West Is Trying To Force Fully Impose On The Rest Of Societies, And From Here Comes The Russian Role To Protect The Cultural And Civilizational Diversity Of The World By Supporting Emerging Centers Of Power And Forming Loose Alliances Aimed At Undermining The Foundations Upon Which The Current International System Ruled By Western Rules Is Based.
The Book Traces The Intellectual And Historical Roots Of This Strategic Shift, Taking The Reader Back To The End Of The Cold War Era And The Subsequent Russian Disappointments. Despite The “New Thinking” Introduced By Mikhail Gorbachev, Which Aimed To Integrate Russia Into The Western System And Build A “Common European Home,” This Trend Soon Collapsed Under The Weight Of Geopolitical Reality And The Expansion Of The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Eastward. This Collapse Paved The Way For The Emergence Of The “Primakov” Doctrine In The Mid-1990s, Named After Former Russian Foreign Minister Yevgeny Primakov, Who Is Considered The True Spiritual Father Of Contemporary Russian Strategy Based On Multipolarity, Which Crystallized Definitively And Violently During The Reign Of President Vladimir Putin.
The Author Highlights The Crucial Distinction That Russia Makes In Its Political And Military Tools And Practices Between What It Calls The “Near Abroad” (Blizhnoe Zarubezhye), Meaning The Former Soviet Space, And The “Far Abroad” (Dalnoye Zarubezhye), Which Includes The Rest Of The World. While Russia Views The Former Soviet Space As An Exclusive And Historical Sphere Of Influence Inherited That Cannot Be Shared With The West, And Deals With Its Countries With An Imperial Colonial Logic That Justifies Direct Military Intervention To Protect Its National Security As Happened In Georgia And Ukraine, It Adopts In The Far Abroad A Flexible And Diplomatic Strategy Based On Building Partnerships, Employing Military Aid, And Exploiting Geopolitical Loopholes To Undermine Western Interests Without Entering Into Direct And Costly Military Confrontations.
This Study Gains Exceptional Importance Given The Timing Of Its Publication, As It Comes In The Midst Of The “Russian World War,” A Term Extensively Explored By The Author To Analyze The International Dimensions Of The War In Ukraine. The Russian Invasion Of Ukraine In 2022 Was Not, From Moscow’s Perspective, Merely A Border Or Regional Dispute, But Rather Served As The First Shot In A Comprehensive War To Reshape The Entire International System And End American Hegemony Definitively. From Here, The Book Analyzes How The Tools Of The Russian State Transformed And Adapted To The Conditions Of Strict International Sanctions And Western Isolation, By Deepening Alliances With Other Major Powers Such As China, And Redirecting Its Economic And Diplomatic Compass Toward The “Global South” As A Strategic Alternative And A New Field Of Confrontation.
Ivan Kłyszcz Provides In This Volume A Deep Critical Review That Is Not Content With Historical Description, But Rather Provides An Analytical Guide To Understanding Decision-Making Mechanisms In The Kremlin And The Nature Of The Tools Used, Whether Diplomatic, Military, Economic, Or Even Through The Employment Of Private Security Companies Such As The “Wagner” Group, Digital Propaganda, And Information Warfare. The Book Represents A Qualitative Addition To The International Political Library, And Provides Researchers And Policymakers With An Integrated Intellectual Framework For Understanding The Outcomes Of The Current Geopolitical Conflict And Future Scenarios For The International System In Light Of The Russian Determination To Move Forward In Its Battle For A Multipolar World, No Matter How Enormous The Costs And Prices Are.
The Pillars Of Russia’s Grand Strategy, In Their Philosophical And Historical Analytical Depth, Are Based On A Radical Review Of The Concepts That Prevailed In The Late Twentieth Century, A Stage That Witnessed The Formulation Of The Political Consciousness Of The Current Generation Of Russian Leaders, Led By Vladimir Putin. The Transition From The Era Of “New Thinking” Preached By Mikhail Gorbachev To The Reality Of Multipolarity Represents The Most Prominent Intellectual Story Of Contemporary Russia, As New Thinking Amed To Integrate Russia Into The West Within What Was Called The “Common European Home,” Which The Subsequent Generation Of Russian Leaders Considered An Illusion That Led To Geopolitical Surrender And Imperial Dissolution That Left Russia On The Margins Of International Decision-Making And Subject To A Dominant And Single-Handed American Multilateralism. From The Womb Of This Intellectual And Geopolitical Disappointment, The Primakov Doctrine Was Born In The Mid-1990s, To Redefine The Russian National Interest Not Through Integration With The West, But Rather Through Balancing It And Limiting Its Influence By Weaving Alliances With Asian And Emerging Powers Such As China And India, Making Multipolarity The Official, Indisputable Doctrine In Successive Russian Foreign Policy Documents.
A Deep Analysis Of The Russian Discourse On Multipolarity Reveals Four Interlapping Structural Principles That Together Form The Comprehensive Russian Narrative For Managing The World And Dealing With Competing Powers. The First Principle Is Represented In The Concept Of “Great Power Hegemony” Or What Can Be Called A Consortium Of Great Powers, Where Russian Intelligence And Diplomacy Officials, Such As Sergey Naryshkin, Cite The “Yalta-Potsdam” System Of 1945 As An Ideal Model For How To Manage A Multipolar World. In This Model, Major Powers Derive Their Legitimacy And Authority From Their Inherent Ability To Prevent Other Powers From Achieving Economic, Cultural, Or Military Dominance, And Therefore International Law And The United Nations Do Not Represent A Superordinate Authority To Which The Great Powers Are Subject, But Are Rather Merely Rules For Engagement, Regulating Relations, And Red Lines Between These Dominant Powers, Which Necessarily Means The Decline Or Absence Of Real Sovereignty For Small Countries, Which In The Rock-Solid Russian Understanding Of Sovereignty Turn Into Mere Tools Or Objects Of Conflict And Not Independent Actors.
Linked To This Understanding Is A Second And Crucial Principle In Russian Strategy, Which Is Embodied In Absolute Skepticism About The Universality Of Human Rights and Liberal Values, Where Russian Strategic And Military Thought Believes That Globalization And Universal Human Rights Concepts Are Nothing Creative But Soft And Insidious Tools To Impose American Unipolarity and Western Cultural Control, Which Ultimately Leads To Chaos And Instability As Happened In The Middle East And Africa. Based On This Conservative And Reactionary Perspective, The Russian Discourse Introduces The Idea Of “Multiple Civilizations,” Each Possessing Its Own Value System Derived From Its Culture And History, Which Justifies Russia Adopting What It Calls A “Special Path Of Development” That Places Russian Cultural Particularity Above Universal Fundamental Rights, And Considers Other Countries’ Adoption Of Western Human Rights Frameworks As A Fall Into Geopolitical Dependence On The United States.
As For The Third Principle Governing This Strategy, It Is “Regional Entitlement” Or The Acquired Imperial Right Of Russia In Its Geographical Surroundings And Its Right To Formulate and Guide The Economic And Cultural Policies Of The Countries Surrounding It. This Space, Which Moscow Terms “The Russian World” (Russkiy Mir), Is Viewed As An Exclusive And Historical Sphere Of Influence In Which Western Powers Are Not Allowed To Penetrate Or Integrate Its Countries Into Western Military Or Political Institutions Such As NATO Or The European Union. Although This Trend Began To Crystallize Diplomatically Since The Era Of Former Foreign Minister Andrei Kozyrev In The Early 1990s When He Spoke Clearly About Russian Spheres Of Influence In The Former Soviet Space, It Transformed Under Vladimir Putin Into A Fierce Offensive Policy Imposed And Protected Mainly Through Tools Of Military And Hard Coercion, As Cleary Demonstrated In Successive Military Interventions Leading To The Full-Scale War In Ukraine.
The Fourth And Final Principle Completing This Vision Is The Messianic Dimension Represented In “Russia’s Global Mission,” Where The Kremlin Does Not See Its Country Simply As A State Defending Its Direct National Interests, But Rather Envisions It As A Unique “Eurasian” Pole Charged With The Task Of Leading The World Toward Liberation From Western Dominance And Restoring The Lost Balance Of The International System. This Messianic Dimension Gives Russian Foreign Policy A Comprehensive and Global Character, And Justifies Its Expansion Outside Its Direct Geographical Scope To Adopt The Causes Of The Global South and Support Anti-Western Regimes On Various Continents. Among The Strategic Paradoxes Discussed By The Book Is That Russia, Despite Its Awareness Of The Weakness Of Its Conventional Military Capabilities And Economy Compared To The Western Bloc, Has Employed This Weakness To Innovate Flexible and Asymmetric State Tools Relying Heavily On Covert Operations, Information Warfare, And The Employment Of Informal Networks Of Influence, Allowing It To Exercise A Global Foreign Policy Reaching Far Beyond The Scale Of Its Actual Economic Capabilities.
The Transition From The Intellectual Theorizing Of The Multipolarity Strategy To The Field Of Practical Application Reflects Exceptional Flexibility And Continuous Adapting Of Russian State Tools In Facing What It Considers Unilateral Western Hegemony, An Aspect To Which Ivan Kłyszcz Devotes A Vast Analytical Space To Examine How The Kremlin Translates This Doctrine In Two Distinct Geopolitical Spaces. In The Regional Space Surrounding It, Or What Is Known As The Near Abroad, Russia Began In The Early Era Of Vladimir Putin By Restructuring Influence Mechanisms By Bypassing The Loose Frameworks Of The Commonwealth Of Independent States And Focusing On Building More Specialized and Effective Institutions With Countries More Cooperative And Close To It Such As Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, And Tajikistan. These Five Countries Formed The Hard Core Of The Collective Security Treaty Organization, Which Was Updated And Upgraded In The Year Two Thousand And Two, In Parallel With The Establishment Of The Eurasian Economic Community In The Year Two Thousand, Where The Russian Agenda Focused On Reducing Trade Barriers, Coordinating Economic Laws, And Facilitating Mutual Exchange, While The Defensive Arm Focused On Enhancing Military Coordination and Bilateral And Multilateral Agreements To Face Common Threats, Foremost Of Which Is Terrorism, Reflecting Moscow’s Desire To Present Itself As A Primary Provider Of Regional Security And Stability.
However, This Institutional Agenda, Which Appeared On Its Face Cooperative And Development-Oriented, Soon Interlaced With Tools Of Coercion And Hard Intervention When Moscow Felt A Serious Threat To Its Regional Entitlement And Exclusive Influence Due To What Became Known As The “Color Revolutions” In Georgia In The Year Two Thousand And Three And Ukraine In The Year Two Thousand And Four. These Political Events Constituted A Dramatic Shift In Russian Strategic And Military Thought, Where The Hypothesis Of A Western Conspiracy And Cross-Border American Sabotage Operations Turned Into A Fixed Idea And A Dominant Obsession For The Decision-Maker In The Kremlin, Who Came To View Any Democratic Transformation Or Popular Movement In Neighboring Countries As A Systemic Plan By The West To Overthrow Allied Regimes To Moscow As A Prelude To Imposing A Puppet Regime Inside Russia Itself. This Security Misgiving Prompted The Kremlin To Formulate A Civilizational And Cultural Narrative Justifying Its Military And Political Interventions, Borrowing The Language Of The Clash Of Civilizations By Samuel Huntington To Revive “Eurasian” Thought, Which Depicts Russia As A Unique And Independent Civilization Standing As A Mediator Between European And Asian Cultures And Possessing A Mission Of Civilization And A Right Of Guidance To The Peoples Of The Region. In This Context, The “Russian World” Foundation Was Launched As An Official State Program In The Year Two Thousand And Seven To Extend Bridges Of Direct Influence With Russian Speakers In The Former Soviet Republics And Employ The Cultural And Linguistic Card To Bypass Legitimate National Governments and Secure Geopolitical Subservience To Moscow.
As For The Wider International Space, Or What Is Known As The Far Abroad, Specifically In Its Relations With Major Powers And The Global South, Russia Adopted A Completely Different Strategy Relying On Flexible Diplomacy and Building Partnerships Based On Common Interests And Opposing American Hegemony Without Entering Into Direct And Costly Military Confrontations That Exceed Its Conventional Economic Capabilities. The “BRICS” Forum And The Shanghai Cooperation Organization Constituted The Ideal Platforms Employed By Moscow To Enhance Its Position As A Great Power And Form A Unified Front With Major Emerging Powers Such As China And India To Undermine The Foundations Of The Global Financial And Political System Governed By Western Rules. Within This Framework, The Book Analyzes How Russia Succeeded In Transforming Its Military And Diplomatic Doctrine Into An Attractive Model For Many Countries Of The Global South By Presenting Itself As A Reliable Security Partner That Does Not Interfere In The Internal Affairs Of States Nor Link Its Military Or Economic Aid To Conditions Related To Human Rights Or Democratic Reforms, A Policy That Bore Significant Fruit In Africa, The Sahel Region, And The Middle East, Where Moscow Rushed To Fill The Vacuum Resulting From The Decline Of Western And French Influence.
This Strategy Reached Its Zenith And Maximum Adaptation With The Outbreak Of The Full-Scale War In Ukraine In The Year Two Thousand And Twenty-Two, Which The Author Studies Under The Title “The Russian World War,” Showing How Moscow Reshaped Its Sovereign Tools To Confront Western Isolation And Severe International Sanctions. This War Was No Longer Just A Regional Conflict, But Transformed In The Russian Perspective Into A Bone-Crushing Battle To Finallly End The Unipolar System Definitively, Prompting The Kremlin To Fully Militarize Its Foreign Policy And Employ Asymmetric and Hybrid Tools To Undermine Western Cohesion. Emerging In This Regard Is The Increasing Importance Of Private Security Companies, Headed By The Wagner Group, Which Transformed Into A Strategic And Striking Arm of Russian Policy In The Far Abroad, Allowing The Russian Regime To Expand In Conflict Regions Rich In Natural Resources In Africa, Secure Mining Contracts, And Protect Allied Regimes, While Maintaining The Advantage Of Official Deniability And Modifying Human and Political Costs For The Regular Russian Army. In Parallel With That, Organized Information Wars, Cyber Attacks, And Directed Digital Propaganda Constituted Crucial Tools For Shaping Public Opinion In The Global South And Planting Divisions Within Western Societies, Confirming That Russia, Despite The Limitation Of Its Material Resources Compared To Its Adversaries, Has Mastered The Employment Of Smart, Hard, And Hybrid Power Tools In An Integrated Manner To Serve Its Ultimate Goal Embodying The Imposition Of A Multipolar World Order In Which Moscow Is One Of Its Firm And Dominant Pillars.
Reading The Structural Shifts In Russia’s Grand Strategy, Especially In The Years Of Violent Engagement Extending Until The Midst Of The Current Decade, Demands A Careful Examination Of The Nature And Balances Of Its Relations With Major Asian Powers, Foremost Of Which Are China And India, Where These Relations Represent The Cornerstone In Moscow’s Endeavors To Build The Front Countering Unipolarity. However, The Deep Scrutiny Conducted By Ivan Kłyszcz Reveals The Existence Of Deep-Seated Divergences and Wide Areas Of Mutual Mistrust Behind The Facade Of The Announced Strategic Alliance Between Moscow And Beijing, As The Researcher Notes That Intelligence Agencies In Both Countries Seldom Engage In Systematic Or Deep Sharing Of Sensitive Information Due To A Long-Standing Historical Legacy Of Apprehension And Mutual Suspicions. Moreover, Beijing Has Historically Imposed Clear Red Lines Before Russian Regional Movements In Vital Regions Such As Southeast Asia, Which Was Clearly Manifested When The Russian State-Owned Oil Company “Rosneft” Was Forced To Withdraw From Joint Exploration Projects In The South China Sea With Vietnam And The Philippines After Beijing Sent Firm Signals Expressing Its Displeasure With Any Russian Activity In Waters It Considers Its Exclusive Sphere Of Influence, Proving That The Partnership “Without Limits” Is In Fact Subject To Strict Geopolitical Limits Imposed By The Superior Economic And Geopolitical Power Of China.
Added To These Complexities Is What The Author Describes As The “Sovereignty Paradox” Faced By Both Chinese And Indian Diplomacy During The Full-Scale Russian Invasion Of Ukraine, Where Beijing And New Delhi Found Themselves In A Delicate Position Requiring Them To Balance Their Vital Strategic And Economic Relations With Moscow On One Hand, And In Principle Complying With The Windows Of International Law And Respecting State Sovereignty And Territorial Integrity On The Other. Because Of This Severe International Embarrassment And To Avoid Falling Under The Brunt Of Severe Secondary Western Sanctions, China Formulated An Evasive Diplomatic Discourse Described As Being “Pro-Russia and Anti-War” At the Same Time, Refraining From Openly Condemning The Invasion While Providing Appreciable Diplomatic Cover For Moscow In The UN Security Council, Expanding The Pace Of Commercial Exchange To Compensate Russia For The Loss Of European Markets, And Providing Important Civilian And Industrial Inputs With Dual Military Applications Such as Equipment and Machinery, But It Strictly Refrained From Supplying The Russian Army With Direct Offensive Weapons and Equipment To Prevent Causing A Complete Rift With Western And American Markets, Which Exceed In Their Economic Importance The Russian Market By Multiple Times, Especially Since Successive American Administrations Continued To Constantly View China, Being The Second-Largest Economy In The World, As The Strategic Challenge Deserving Most Attention and Focus Compared To Russia, Whose Economic Size Barely Places It Within The Top Ten Economies Globally.
In The Same Manner, India Constituted A Vital And Fluctuating Partner For Russia, Providing New Delhi With A Highly Important Economic Lifeline Through The Enormous and Unprecedented Increase In Purchases Of Crude Russian Oil At Discounted Prices, Helping The Kremlin Absorb The First Shocks Of Western Sanctions And Fund Its War Machine. However, The Limits Of Indian Support Appeared More Distinct And Exposed, As New Delhi Clearly Seeks To Maintain Its Growing Strategic Relations With Washington And The West Within The Framework Of Alliances Facing The Chinese Rise, Making Its Partnership With Russia Tactical, Utilitarian, And Confined To The Fields Of Energy And Conventional Armament Without Engaging In The Messianic Russian Narrative Countering The West Entirely. This Indian And Chinese Stance Tinged With Caution Reflects A Major Dilemma For Russian Grand Strategy, For While Moscow Seeks To Lead A Unified Global Front To Undermine Western Influence, Rising Asian Powers Refuse To Follow Uncalculated Russian Military Adventures, Preferring To Act On Improving Their Positions Within The Existing International System Rather Than Destroying It Completely.
This Critical Examination Extends To Survey The Terrain Of Russian Tools In Issues Of Reconstruction And International Conflict Management, Where A Sharp Strategic Divergence Appears Between The Russian And Chinese Visions In Conflict Regions and The Global South; China Tends Mostly To Adopt An Institutional Economic Approach That Partially Aligns With International And UN Initiatives Through Injecting Massive Investments In Infrastructure and Major Development Projects Via The Belt And Road Initiative, While Russia, Given Its Limited Financial Resources, Tends To Adopt A Pure Security Approach Based On Exploiting Conflicts And Political Turbulence and Employing Systemic Media Disinformation Campaigns Against The West, Bringing It Into Continuous Clashes With United Nations Peacekeeping Missions And International Initiatives To Establish Stability. This Structural Divergence Confirms That The Russian Strategy, Despite Its Tactical Success In Destabilizing Stability In Western Spheres Of Influence And Highlighting Its Position As A Global Player That Cannot Be Bypassed, Remains Incapable Of Offering A Sustainable Economic Or Development Alternative To The Countries Of The Global South, Making Its Ambition To Build A Multipolar World Order Rely Principally On Its Destructive Power And Its Capacity For Geopolitical Disruption More Than Its Reliance On Factors Of Construction And Comprehensive Hegemony.
The Tools Of The Russian State Integrate In Activating Its Grand Strategy Through An Intensive Employment Of Mechanisms Of “Summit Diplomacy,” Which Has Come To Represent A Vital Platform To Circumvent Attempts At Geopolitical And Economic Isolation Led By The Western System Against It Since The Year Two Thousand And Fourteen, Deepening In An Unprecedented Manner In Subsequent Years. The Author’s Reading Of The Detailed Voting Tables Within The United Nations General Assembly On Resolutions Relating To The Territorial Integrity Of Ukraine Reveals A Highly Accurate Map Of International Division; Despite The Unified And Comprehensive Condemnation From European Countries And North American Countries, The Positions Of African, Asian, And Latin American Countries Were Characterized By A Great Deal Of Divergence And Hesitation Between Abstention From Voting Or Absence, A Diplomatic Loophole That Moscow Hurried To Exploit and Turn Into An Opportunity To Strengthen Its Narrative Surrounding Multipolarity. From This Perspective, Periodic Summits And Conferences Organized By Moscow Are No Longer Merely A Display Of Public Relations Or Passing Propaganda Tools, But Have Transformed Into A Systemic and Institutional Strategy To Confirm Russia’s Ambitions As A Great Power With A Global Scope, As Embodied In The First Russia-Africa Summit In The Year Two Thousand And Nineteen And Subsequent Summits, The Russian-Arab Cooperation Forum, The Russia-ASEAN Summit, In Addition To Extended Parliamentary Conferences With Legislators From Africa And Latin America and The Annual Moscow Conference On International Security, Which Are Spaces Through Which Moscow Seeks To Formulate A Diplomatic Front Parallel To Traditional International Frameworks And Institutions.
In Parallel With These High-Level Diplomatic Movements, The Past Two Decades Witnessed A Radical Transformation In The Nature Of The Geography Of Russian Military Exports, Where Data Issued By The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) Reflects The Zeroing Of Russian Military Exports To European Union Countries And NATO After the Year Two Thousand And Fourteen, After Representing A Very Negligible Percentage Before That, For The Russian Military And Armament Weight To Shift Completely Toward The East And The Global South. This Trend Resulted In The Signing Of Dozens Of New Defense Cooperation Agreements, Including Twenty Defense Agreements With New African Partners Within Just Five Years, Making Russia Occupy The Second Rank As The Largest Exporter Of Weapons To The Sub-Saharan Africa Region In The Past Decade Before These Exports Witnessed Some Decline Resulting From The Requirements Of The Exhausting War In The Russian Interior. These Military Sales And Security Agreements Were Not Merely Commercial Deals To Collect Hard Currency, But Represented A Highly Effective Geopolitical Tool To Secure Political Loyalty; Where Statistical And Analytical Studies On Which The Book Relies Prove That Countries That Link Tight Military And Security Partnerships With Moscow Are Far Less Inclined To Vote Against Russian Interests In International Forums, Foremost Of Which Is The United Nations General Assembly.
This Strategic Employment Of Military And Diplomatic Tools Extends To Include Latin America, Which Gained Doubled Attention In Russian Programmatic Documents and Intensive Diplomatic Tours By Russian Foreign Ministers. The Author Analyzes The Motives Underlying This Russian Rush Toward The Backyard Of The United States Through The Concept Of “Strategic Mirroring,” Where The Security Doctrine In The Kremlin Departs From A Conviction Stating That Building An Advanced Military, Intelligence, And Economic Presence In Countries Such As Venezuela, Nicaragua, And Cuba Represents A Symmetrical Response And An Accurate Simulation Of American And Atlantic Movements In The Former Soviet Space And Russia’s Traditional Spheres Of Influence. Through This Approach, Moscow Seeks To Create Reciprocal Geopolitical Pressure Cards To Make Washington Understand That Approaching Russian Borders Will Be Met By A Similar Russian Approach To American Borders, Enhancing The Logic Of Mutual Deterrence And Forcing The West To Think Lengthily Before Interfering In The Affairs Of The Russian “Near Abroad.”
However, A Detailed Examination Of These Tools Reveals Clear Limits And Structural Obstacles That Prevent Transforming This Diplomatic Support Or Security Partnership Into An International Legal Recognition Of Russia’s Expansionist Policies; Where Kłyszcz Notes That Moscow, Despite Its Success In Prompting Many Countries Of The Global South To Take Neutral Positions Or Refrain From Voting Against It, Has Failed Almost Completely In Convincing These Countries To Officially Recognize The Legitimacy Of Adopting The Crimean Peninsula Or Other Ukrainian Regions It Occupied. This Failure Returns Principally To The Adherence Of Global South Countries To The Principle Of The Sacredness Of Borders Inherited From Colonialism For Fear Of Opening The Gates Of Border Disputes Within Their Continents, Highlighting The Existence Of A Deep Chasm Between The Desire Of Those Countries To Benefit From Russia As An Alternative Security And Economic Partner To Balance The West, And Their Absolute Refusal To Bless The Imperial Russian Behavior That Violates The Foundations Of International Law, Which Weakens The Final Outcome Of Russia’s Grand Strategy and Makes Its International Rise Fraught With Fragility And Geopolitical Uncertainty.
