Valery Konyshev | Saint-Petersburg State University (original) (raw)

Uploads

Papers by Valery Konyshev

Arktika i Sever, Sep 28, 2023

Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriâ 4. Istoriâ, regionovedenie, meždunarodnye otnošeniâ, Mar 1, 2024

Introduction. The article examines cooperation between Russia and the US on Arctic research in th... more Introduction. The article examines cooperation between Russia and the US on Arctic research in the context of the Ukrainian crisis. One of the accompanying tasks is to study the motivations of both sides for continuing such cooperation. Methods and materials. The article uses the so-called liberal intergovernmental approach as a research method, aiming to explain the reasons for cooperation between countries with different socio-political structures and national interests on the world stage. The empirical basis for the study was the documents of international organizations, US and Russian state institutions, as well as research organizations in Russia and the US involved in the study of the Arctic. Analysis. The article demonstrates that currently there are four main levels of US-Russian scientific cooperation in the Arctic: interpersonal (individual), institutional (between various Russian and American organizations), state (government exchange programs), and international (within the framework of multilateral organizations of a global and regional nature). Results. It is concluded that despite the unfriendly actions taken by the US against Russian scientists and organizations, the "mechanism of interdependence" created in previous years did not allow to completely interrupt scientific ties between these countries. Both sides are well aware of the value of cooperation in this area and therefore try to maintain certain channels of interaction. Natural science topics (climate change, meteorology, environmental protection, biodiversity conservation, oceanology, glaciology, etc.) dominate the priorities of US-Russian scientific cooperation in the Arctic. However, socio-humanitarian and interdisciplinary issues (local communities, indigenous peoples, gender studies, urban development and planning, etc.) have recently become increasingly important. The authors believe that scientific cooperation between Russia and the US in the Arctic will revive as the international situation and bilateral relations between the two countries normalize after the settlement of the Ukrainian conflict. Authors' contribution. V.N. Konyshev: Introduction and Analysis. A.A. Sergunin: Abstract, methods and materials, results, and design of the scientific apparatus.

This study examines how Arctic policies are being made in presentday Russia. More specifically, t... more This study examines how Arctic policies are being made in presentday Russia. More specifically, this paper focuses on the roles and functions of various actors and institutions participating in the decision-making process. Both governmental and non-governmental actors are examined. The effectiveness of the decision-making mechanism is assessed. Major problems in organisation and functioning of this system are identified. The authors conclude that a rather stable decision-making machinery on Arctic policy has been created within the executive branch of the Russian government. The elements of parliamentary control over the decision-making process have been created. An executive-legislative liaison/consultative mechanism has been established and it facilitated the dialogue between the Kremlin and the legislature on Arctic policies. The role of the Russian regional and local governments became more salient in Arctic policy-making. Russia's Arctic regional and local governments develop numerous horizontal/networking-type relations (paradiplomacies) with their foreign partners. Non-governmental actors, such as the Russian business community, human rights, indigenous peoples' and environmental NGOs have got some say in Arctic policy-making. Despite some shortcomings the Russian Arctic policy-making system evolved in a more democratic and efficient way. Transitional period still continues but the grounds for optimistic expectations are quite solid. ARTICLE HISTORY 1 See, for example, the most fundamental, book-length works on Russia's Arctic strategies: Carlsson and Granholm, Russia and the Arctic; Heininen et al., Russian Strategies in the Arctic; Indzhiev, Bitva za Arktiku; Lukin, Rossiyskaya Arktika v Izmenyayushemsya Mire; Pezard et al., Maintaining Arctic Cooperation with Russia; Podvintsev, Rossiyskaya Arktika v Poiskakh Integral'noi Identichnosty; Sergunin and Konyshev, Russia in the Arctic; Trenin and Baev, The Arctic: A View from Moscow; Zagorsky, Arktika:

While the Editorial Committee and Advisory Board support the General Editor in the choice and imp... more While the Editorial Committee and Advisory Board support the General Editor in the choice and improvement of manuscripts for publication, responsibility for remaining errors and misinterpretations in the series' volumes lies with the books' authors.

The Handbook of the Arctic, 2022

World Economy and International Relations, 2010

The growing interest in exploitation of the Arctic is present on the part of many countries. Acco... more The growing interest in exploitation of the Arctic is present on the part of many countries. According to the existing legal rules, only five countries directly bordering on the Arctic are eligible to develop its shelf: Canada, Denmark, Norway, the USA and Russia. Japan and China would like to participate if the Extreme North exploitation regime changes. The authors analyze the unfolding battle between different countries for the control over the Arctic. For many countries, their interests in the region and concepts of the shelf borders are the area of disagreement. Therefore, both multipartite and bipartite coalitions at the political level are possible in the future.

National Interests: Priorities and Security, 2019

Arktika i Sever, Sep 28, 2023

Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriâ 4. Istoriâ, regionovedenie, meždunarodnye otnošeniâ, Mar 1, 2024

The Handbook of the Arctic, 2022

World Economy and International Relations, 2010

National Interests: Priorities and Security, 2019

В учебнике, подготовленном коллективом преподавателей Санкт-Петербургского государственного униве... more В учебнике, подготовленном коллективом преподавателей Санкт-Петербургского государственного университета, дается развернутый анализ современных теорий международных отношений. В нем рассматриваются идейные истоки, основные положения и критика ведущих парадигм — неореализма, неолиберализма, глобализма и
постпозитивизма. Анализируются последствия так называемой постпозитивистской революции для теории международных отношений, а также перспективы межпарадигмальных дебатов в обозримом будущем. Учебник предназначен для студентов-магистрантов, обучающихся по направлению «Международные отношения». Он также может быть полезен студентам и аспирантам, обучающимся по другим гуманитарным направлениям и специальностям, преподавателям и научным работникам, специализирующимся на исследовании теоретических аспектов международных отношений.

СПб.: Галарт+, 2021

В монографии изучаются национальные интересы США в Арктике, доктринальные основы американской стр... more В монографии изучаются национальные интересы США в Арктике, доктринальные основы американской стратегии в регионе,
анализируется американский экономический и военный курс на Крайнем Севере, а также предпринимается попытка кратко-, средне-
и долгосрочного прогнозирования политики Вашингтона в Арктике. Делается вывод, что для арктической стратегии США характерна преемственность, что выражается в росте геополитической и геоэкономической значимости этого региона в системе внешнеполитических приоритетов Вашингтона, а также создании материально-технической и политико-дипломатической основы для американского доминирования в Арктике. В отличие от 1990-х и начала 2000-х гг., когда США, с одной стороны, резко снизили свое экономическое, политическое и военное присутствие в регионе, с другой – пошли на многостороннее сотрудничество с другими арктическими государствами в вопросах «мягкой» безопасности, в последние 10–15 лет наблюдается тенденция к одностороннему формату действий Вашингтона на Крайнем Севере, а также использованию силовых методов при реализации своих стратегических целей в регионе.

This book investigates two related topics. First, the roots of neorealist paradigm that dominates... more This book investigates two related topics. First, the roots of neorealist paradigm that dominates in the studies of international relations. Second, it seeks the nature of war in the neorealist perspective. The book has been written to give a clearer understanding of the way neorealism was developed in American political thought; to reveal conceptional and methodological base of neorealism; to show the specific features and the diversity of neorealist approaches; to figure out how these versions of political theory treat the reasons of war using the multi–level method of analysis first provided by Kenneth Waltz.
The monograph consists of two Parts and several chapters. Part–I deals with the main approaches in the evolution of neorealism. It starts with a survey of main paradigms in International Relations theories. It describes the basic concepts of realism, liberalism, globalism, geopolitics, constructivism, and post–positivism. The proximate sources of neorealism are «classic» realism supplied with methodological principles developed by French structuralism and structural–functional analysis.
The second chapter offers a classification of different neorealist theories based on their vision of systemic nature and features of international system. I distinguish few concurrent theories: structural realism, cyclic theory, evolutionary theory, theory of hegemonic stability, historical–structural approach, and nonlinear analysis of international politics.
The third chapter shows the main tendencies in the development of modern neorealism, which are related to the discussions about basic concepts and methodology. These questions include a broader treatment of security, the alternative meanings of balance of power, the conditions of security and cooperation in international relations, the growing activity of non–state actors, the co–evolution of economics and politics in the post–cold war world, the necessity to cover not only the great powers but also the Third world countries by theoretical analysis.
Part–II of the book focuses on the nature of war in international relations. The forth chapter discusses the way American researches define some key terms like «power», «force», «balance of power», «capability», and non–violent means of influence like «authority», «persuasion», «control». Neorealism, as well as other paradigms, hasn’t overcome the ambiguity of definitions. The force is treated as power distribution in international system or attribute of power or acting capability and the result of the action. Additional difficulties arise from the fact that the sources of state capability comprise both material and ideal elements. Special attention is paid to the impact of information technologies on American military force being on the stage of revolution in military affairs. There are no adequate quantitative techniques to measure force due to the ambiguities in definitions, asymmetry of the sources of power for different states, and ideal nature of some elements of capability. The chapter concludes that war as political means hasn’t changed in contemporary international politics since Clausewitz, as some liberals suggested by the end of the cold war. What have been changed are the new forms of warfare and the new threats on the global and local levels.
The fifth chapter is devoted to the neorealist’ vision of reasons of war. It studies how the main approaches explain the conditions of systemic stability and war with respect to the multi–level understanding of international politics: system, state, and man. As follows from their arguments, neorealists have different and sometimes contradictive points of view on the systemic reasons of war and on the perspectives of American hegemony. But they still share theses about anarchy, state as main actor, sovereignty as the key principle of international system, and structural principles of analysis. Because of its limits, neorealists’ explanations of war on the state and man level are more amorphous comparing to the systemic level. Partial theories, especially on the man level, prone to interdisciplinary methodology and are more inductive rather then deductive.

The new challenges of post cold war world have changed military strat-egy of modern great powers ... more The new challenges of post cold war world have changed military strat-egy of modern great powers including the United States. Author treats mili-tary strategy as a part of American «grand strategy». Main attention he paid to evolution of three elements of military strategy: comprehension of threats, strategic/operational concepts, and military reforms.
The first chapter describes levels of strategic analysis and reveals factors shaping modern military strategy. The last comprise trends of global development, strategic environment, grand strategy, and traditions of strategic thinking.
The second chapter investigates how American military perceived threats to national security before and after 9/11. Obviously, the switch to terrorism and soft security engendered the ambiguity in selecting of criteria for the use of force. The principle of threat estimation has been changed from state-centric approach to challenges from global trends, rouge states, and non-state actors, which are able to use asymmetric methods of warfare and/or terror. Homeland security became the first priority task for American security.
The third chapter depicts evolution of strategic concepts (selective en-gagement, preventive defense, preemptive actions), operational concepts of transformation (forward deterrence, joint operations, information operations, operations other than war), and nuclear strategy. American strategy tends to the use of brigade-type mobile light forces both in regional conflicts and wide range of peace-time military operations. The role of special operation forces and expeditionary abilities of regular forces arose significantly. Modern military strategy makes emphasize on operational rather than overall strategic concepts because the United States still have no comparable challenger.
The forth chapter deals with military reforms: «base force», «the bottom up review», «transformation» (joint force), and «new triad». American strategy implies building-up a global military structure providing global strike in critical regions: Europe, North-East Asia, Middle East, and the littoral of East Asia. Department of Defense intended to win any adversary shortly by the use of relatively small but more mobile and flexible forces. The benefits of American force derives from combination of joint force doctrine, high-tech weapons, global military presence, and integrated combat command system called C4ISR (control, communication, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance). Its main vulnerable points are military infrastructure facilities located abroad and dependency on sophisticated information and communication technologies.
Military doctrines and force structure clear support hegemonic strategy of the United States. Apparently, new President of the United States B. Obama will not change main parameters of military strategy in spite of his liberal rhetoric. The United States will continue penetration in Central Asia and Caucasus to strengthen control over Eurasia. While Russia is still within eyeshot of military, the focus of American strategy is shifting to China as potential regional and further global challenger.