Search

Witnessing the pro-Western shifts in the post-Soviet countries, Russia has failed to develop policies that would attract the former Soviet satellites without keeping them in its sphere of influence via hard-power. On the other hand, Western values, political influence and institutions have penetrated Eurasian countries causing Russia's relative decline. This structural dynamic not only entraps Russia in a zero-sum game with the West but also triggers Russian threat perceptions on the unit level. Russian strategic culture emphasizes anxieties about loss of sovereignty or power shifts in the Russian regime that could mean the end of the current establishment, border security, and great power status resurrection. A combination of these threat perceptions and structural shifts manifests in the Thucydides Trap, an ancient dilemma behind the preventive war, in the post-Soviet space. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article analyzes historical monuments as instruments of Russia's attempts to impose its aesthetic hegemony in the post-Communist world. Drawing on case studies from the Czech Republic and Estonia, it argues that this hegemony is precarious and vulnerable due to inability to deal with the inherent ambiguity and complexity of historical events and figures. The Russian approach regards historical truth in absolute terms and is underpinned by a zero-sum game understanding of historical narratives. It does not tolerate a multiplicity of perspectives on history and has no appreciation for postmodernist deconstruction of historical symbols. This conflicts with a more diverse, reflexive and inclusive politics of memory as an intrinsic element of cityscapes of Prague and Tallinn where some of the controversial monuments connected with the Soviet occupation have been removed. Russia's reaction to these changes reveals an inherently vulnerable nature of its aesthetic hegemony which is deeply dependent on recognition of the absolute nature of its historical truth that the monuments are supposed to embody. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dissatisfied with their relative standing in the world, China and Russia are challenging the US-dominated liberal order. Could US accommodation of their status concerns reduce conflict? The psychological rationale for status accommodation is rooted in the insights of social identity theory (SIT), which argues that persistent status denial leads lower-status groups to "lash out." Steven Ward (2017) objects that political scientists have misinterpreted SIT. In his view, impermeable group boundaries only affect individuals and do not lead to intergroup conflict. Ward's narrow critique overlooks the larger meaning and significance of SIT, which is about how frustration and anger over status barriers and unfair treatment motivate lower-status groups to challenge the status quo. Social competition is positional and zero-sum. Given the insights of SIT, Ward's recommendation that the United States demonstrate to China and Russia the futility of status competition is likely to provoke a backlash and increase the risk of military conflict. Instead, SIT implies a continuing process of status accommodation and efforts to maintain the legitimacy and stability of US leadership. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]