The Status of International Relations between the US and Russia - Research Proposal Example

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS BETWEEN USA AND RUSSIA By Name Course Instructor Institution City/State Date Table of Contents INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS BETWEEN USA AND RUSSIA 1 Table of Contents 2 Introduction 3 1.0 Thesis 3 2.0 Justification 4 3.0 Methodology 10 4.0 Sources 15 Summary 16 Bibliography 17 The status of International Relations between U.S. and Russia Introduction A new era was ushered after the falling of the Soviet Union wherein cooperative partnership became plausible and possible between the United States and Russia. In the last decade, the international relations between U.S. and Russia have endured intense shifts. Although cooperation between these two countries appeared to be on the track following the 9/11 terror attacks, complete cooperation is yet to be realised. For some years, a number of foreign policy actions have led to reproachful rhetoric and conflict from both countries. This according to Kaczmarski (2011, 8) appears astonishing bearing in mind that both U.S. and Russia share a number of interests like arms control, non-proliferation as well as antiterrorism. Therefore, the study will try to explain what cause the tension between the U.S and Russian international relations. Besides having common interests, both countries’ views of the world is totally different considering that Russia and U.S. have different and unique political cultures, whereby each government is expected to work in accordance to that cultures; thus, resulting in disagreement due to difference in understanding. In this research proposal, the focus is on the international relations between United States of America and Russia. 1.0 Thesis The aim of the study will be to examine the international relations (IR) between United States and Russia as well as bring about understanding why the ‘reset’ policy eventually failed, despite the fact that it had resulted in numerous achievements in bilateral relations. The study will summarize as well explain the IR progress between U.S. and Russia since the end of the cold war. Furthermore, the study will analyze the main factors that resulted in the present US-Russia relations state of affairs. Particularly, the study intends to establish whether Russia transition as the U.S. 'far-away enemy' is attributed mainly by political and geographical interests, or because of Vladimir Putin long-standing leadership. Putin has been a long serving leader of Russia, the study will seek to examine whether his form of leadership has considerably changed the course of international relations between his country and United States. Moreover, the study will evaluate the validity of the assumption that after the end of cold war, the U.S states pursued a foreign policy that incited Russia to utilize move towards a dictatorial regime weakened the relations between U.S and Russia, which led to the failing of the ‘reset’ policy. Therefore, the study will try to illustrate the statue of IR between these two countries. 2.0 Justification Literature review In Suslov (2013, 2) study, he tries to show how the US-Russian relations have entered a new imperfect political season. According to Suslov (2013, 2), the ‘reset’ has failed, and the IR between these two countries has worsened since 2011 with both countries’ political leadership being disappointed as well as irritated with each other. Thus far, neither U.S. nor Russia has made a significant political capital investment to improve their deteriorating relations. Undeniably, the relations contradictions have exceeded those of positive cooperation. The IR between these two countries according to Suslov (2013, 8) worsened in 2012, after Russia stated that the bilateral relations had developed a ‘mini-crisis’. Suslov (2013, 8) argues that the negative effect of the “mini crisis” in the two countries’ international relations revealed itself in the tumbling political willpower by both countries to improve the reactions. This is evidenced by Russian political leadership who depicted the U.S. as an unfriendly power, which must be neutralized and deterred in both domestic as well as foreign policy. Still, both countries have a crucial positive agenda to focus on, which is important to their national interests such as the Asia Pacific and Afghanistan. The major obstacle to IR between the two countries according to Suslov (2013, 11) is the lack of political will from both countries. Nowadays as argued by Graham (2010, 9) Russia akin to U.S. is these days a consequential country, thanks to its vast energy reserves, enormous nuclear arsenal as well as nuclear energy expertise, worldwide geopolitical position as well as prowess in scientific. Since the fall of Soviet Union in 1991, the cooperation between Russia and the United States has helped the latter realize its strategic goals. In view of that, the U.S. has persistently searched for constructive IR with Russia, but has achieved little success. For instance, the ambitions by the Clinton Administration’s to promote transformation of Russia into a free-market, pro-Western democracy failed following Russia’s 1998 economic meltdown as well as increasing animosity over NATO expansion. Besides that, efforts by the Bush Administration’s to hastily develop a strategic partnership failed because of what Graham (2010, 9) terms as authoritarian path by the Russian regime. Obama attempt to ‘reset’ relations into lasting constructive relations failed horribly because of what Russia termed as a ‘mini-crisis’. Katz (2014) article analyses whether he existing differences between Russia and the U.S. on different issues could have occurred if Russia had experienced democratization. The study also examines why the differences between the two countries increased under the leadership of Putin as well as investigates what the U.S. can do so as to facilitate the democratization prospects in Russia. Katz (2014, 130) argues that Russian figures such as Putin have often quoted numerous events steered by U.S as well as its allies that have resulted to worsening of US-Russia relations, and which rationalize Russia’s negative interpretation of US foreign policy. The factors that Russia believe has led to IR deterioration between Moscow and Washington include: Kosovo’s independence recognition by U.S., NATO expansion, Iraq intervention led by US, NATO and U.S intervention in Libya in 2011, as well as the arming of Syrian opposition, U.S. opposition to annexation of Crimea by Russia. Katz (2014, 138) suggests that Obama administration should take steps, which will challenge Putin’s ability to persuade scores of Russians that his expansionism as well as authoritarianism is for their own interest. According to Åslund and Kuchins (2009, 1), the conflicts between Georgia and Russia that started in mid-2008 led to deterioration of US-Russia relations. Åslund and Kuchins (2009, 1), further argue that the Georgian war proved that US foreign policy toward Russia needed a significant reevaluation. For Russia to achieve its full potential, Åslund and Kuchins (2009, 2) assert that it must integrate completely into international economic as well as political order. Russia together with neighbors cannot feel safe unless Russia becomes committed to security arrangements at regional level. Despite the failing relationship between the two countries, the U.S. in response embarked on numerous concrete measures such as withdrawing the 123 Agreement, a Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation between the two countries. Russia expected the Western countries to respond; therefore, it officially deferred its efforts to join the World Trade Organization. The current IR between U.S and Russia as argued by Troitskiy (2011, 1) depict a classic instance of security predicament because the mutual distrust between Washington and Moscow surpass the fears of each country’s offensive capabilities build-up. They both believe defensive capabilities enhancement to be threatening; for instance, U.S.-led surface-to-air missile defense project is considered by Russia as a threat to its nuclear deterrent capability. On the other hand, U.S. and the Western countries perceive Russia’s military exercises such as one carried out in 2010 in Belarus as preparations of deviously unforgiving retaliations against neutral as well as neighboring NATO states. Troitskiy (2011, 1) argues that the U.S.-Russia relations dilemma is brought about by numerous factors, which includes Eurasia policy differences after the end of the Cold war, deep-rooted mutual distrust, and nuclear deterrence logic. Troitskiy (2011) study tries to explain the basis of the U.S.-Russia security dilemma in details by examining the impact of ‘two-level’ negotiating practices between Russia and the U.S. on this predicament. Troitskiy (2011, 1) argues that a successful negotiations’ cycle between the two countries can be realised if the lead negotiators champions an agreement with a wider ratification at the domestic level. In 2002, during the Moscow summit illustrated the high-point IR between the U.S. and Russia relations. Even though, Putin was unhappy with the unilateral decision by the Bush administration to abandon the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty signed in 1972, Pifer (2009, 3) posits that Putin decided to ignore the issue during the summit. The IR impelled by collaboration against global terrorism following the 9/11 attacks, made many IR analysts as cited by Pifer (2009) to believe that there was an optimistic future between the two countries. Regrettably, Moscow and Washington were not successful in realizing this potential because both presidents got preoccupied with different issues. For instance, Bush became engrossed with Iraq as well as Saddam Hussein; while Putin got preoccupied with making sure Kremlin takes control over main domestic power levers as well as nurturing its IR with Europe. According to Abashina (2012, 1), since the fall of the Soviet Union, the IR between Russia and U.S. has endured a number of ups and downs. In the 21st century, both countries have in some instances cooperated while in other instances they have disagreed. For instance, following the 9/11 terrorist attacks as argued by Abashina (2012, 1), Moscow decided to strategically partner with the United States in fight against terrorism in Afghanistan by allowing NATO cargoes through Russia. Soon after, the relationship between both countries deteriorated as Moscow fervently opposed Iraq invasion led by US. Furthermore, the relationship sourced further when U.S. made its plans public of constructing in Poland an anti-­‐ballistic shield. This compelled Washington to abandon the plans, and since then the relations have remained tense since both sides oppose U.S and Russia each other’s decisions on foreign policy. Selvaggio (2012) provides a number of justifications of how the U.S.-Russian relation is affected by NATO expansion. According to Selvaggio (2012, 14), Russia believes NATO expansion into lands that were previously under its ‘sphere of influence’ such as Ukraine and Georgia is a security threat. The U.S. policy of pursuing expansion, intends to generate a superior stability, but Russia see it as a security threat. This is further explained by Beridze (2009, 13) who argues that NATO and the U.S. confrontational initiatives together with policies of Georgian government that provoked reaction from Moscow was the NATO expansion process. Furthermore, the total security and political commitment of Georgia to the government of United States as well provoked Russia. For this reason, military as well as political confrontation between Georgia as well as Russia was inevitable. Clearly, a number of questions materialize to the debate table of IR scholars. Russia believes that U.S. disinterest in initiating a real dialogue on issues affecting its interests is the cause of tension between the two countries. Obama administration’s rhetoric as well as the succeeding actions was considered by Kremlin as an indication of the U.S. willingness to reformulate its foreign policy, writes Kaczmarski (2011, 8). In this regard, Russia benefited from the ‘reset’ when the U.S. withdrew from actions perceived by Moscow as damaging to its geopolitical interests as well as harmful to its status as a global power. Particularly, Russia benefited from the arms control resumption, as manifested in the new START treaty. Besides that, the Obama administration halted the unilateral nuclear arsenal building policy initiated by the Bush administration so as to recommence the real joint offensive arms supervision together with Russia. In view of the reviewed literature, it is clear that in the current politics studies; only a few interstate relationships have become confounding, controversial and instrumental to the international policy makers as compared to that between U.S. and Russia. Regardless of the great significance of Russian-U.S. relations to regional as well as global politics, there are only a few studies on this issue. Even though subject analysts have offered a wealth of information on historical as well as contemporary happenings that have seemingly conditioned and defined bilateral relations, the effort utilised to study, isolate, test, as well as assess those variables or conditions considered relevant to cooperation is very little. In view beyond the scope of the current study to examine conditions or factors that have an effect on the bilateral relations, formalising a variable that can record the shifting political affinity is a crucial step that can fill-in the existing gap in the current US-Russian relations literature. Instead of just ignoring the existing tradition of literature on IR between Washington and Moscow, the study will transform and aggregate the subject’s various narratives into a political, quantitative and accessible metric that may create the foundation for future studies. Therefore, a new approach will be introduced in the study to measuring and monitoring changes in cooperation between Moscow and Washington. 3.0 Methodology Basically, positivism as mentioned by Griffiths, O'Callaghan and Roach (2008, xii) belongs to epistemology and may be described as a particular way of knowing, while the approach to knowing is considered as methodology. The study will not use positivism approach because it holds the view that the only knowledge (factual) achieved by means of the senses (observation), which includes the measurement, is reliable. Basically, the researcher role in positivism studies is restricted to the collection and interpretation of data by means of objective approach while the findings in the research are normally quantifiable as well as observable. The positivism principles argue that statistical analysis can be achieved through quantifiable observations and that positivism is compliant with the scientist observation that knowledge sources from the human experience. Positivism studies perceive world as having isolated, discernible events and element, which interact regularly, determinedly, and observably. Another reason why the study will not pursue the positivism dimension is because there are no human interests’ provisions in the study, but rather it normally espouses deductive approach. Therefore, the study will pursue an interpretive method, whereby the researchers will be expected to interpret study elements. According to Research Methodology (2015), in the interpretive methodology unlike positivist method, the human interests are integrated into the study. In view of that, the interpretive researchers will access the reality by means of social constructions like instruments, consciousness, language as well as shared meanings. Basically, interpretivist philosophy development is rooted in the evaluation of positivism within the social sciences. Interpretive method is related to the idealism philosophical position, and is utilized in combining various approaches such as hermeneutics, phenomenology as well as social constructionism. Furthermore, studies that focus on interpretivism normally concentrate on meaning and can use a number of techniques so as to reflect various facets of the issue. The study will use interpretivist methodology because it focuses on qualitative data collection as well as utilizes techniques like participant observation and unstructured interviews, offers this form of data. Interpretivists according to Research Methodology (2015) believe that to achieve a good research, it is imperative to examine how activities are interpreted by humans and this may be realised by means of methods different from those utilized in the positivist method. The study will not utilize positivism because it depends on experience as a reliable source of information. On the other hand, interpretive methods offer a qualitative primary data, but with low reliability level considering that the primary data is naturally empathetic. Basically, inductive and deductive research approaches are different because deductive approach involves the testing of the theory while the inductive approach focuses on creating a new theory that emerges from the collected data. Normally, a deductive approach starts with a hypothesis while the inductive approach utilises the research questions with the intention of narrowing the study scope. For this reason, the study will not use the deductive approaches because they focus more on the causality. Instead, the study will use the inductive approaches with the intention of examining the U.S-Russian relations, being phenomena that had been researched previously, but the study seeks to provide a different perspective. Generally, the inductive approaches are related to the qualitative research while the deductive approaches are normally related to quantitative research; still, no evidence exist showing that qualitative do not have a deductive orientation. Basically, IR studies seek to describe different political interactions amongst organizations, societies as well as countries. Whether exploring environmental conflict or economic cooperation or studying peace/war, Sprinz and Wolinsky-Nahmias (2004, 1) posit that IR studies need a systematic approach so as to recognise crucial forces as well as processes of change. Because of the increasing economic interdependence as well as other unfathomable changes within the international system in the last few years, the IR analysis has stretched out into three key directions. Foremost, new issues ranging from international ethics and global environmental politics to globalization have been tackled by scholars. Second, the emergence of two new techniques (the spatial analysis as well as two-level game analysis) in addition to the array of methodologies has stretched to entails greater utilisation of statistical methods and rational choice paradigms. Lastly, scholars are currently more specialized in utilising different methodologies as well as in their respective subfields. Without a doubt, such developments have improved research in international relations by focusing more on additional study areas like adherence to international treaties and civil wars justification as well as by altering how these subjects are analysed by the researchers. Methodology and theory according to Sprinz and Wolinsky-Nahmias (2004, 4) are most useful when accompanying one another for knowledge advancement. Whereas theory offers justifications for certain occurrences rotted in particular hypotheses, knowledge that is purely axiomatic changed into theories, is hardly valuable in illumination of real-world politics. Essentially, theoretical arguments must be improved by systematic testing techniques, which assist in guarding against selection bias. In this case, the study will use the case study research due to its ability to generate new hypotheses that can advance IR theory building. Basically, both quantitative methods as well as case studies are normally utilized for testing test propositions. The study’s research design will be crafted cautiously so as to allow regularities’ evaluation between variables with the intention of detecting their limitations. Research Question The main research question is establishing the status of IR between United States and Russia. Other research questions include: 1. How is NATO expansion affecting the U.S.-Russian relations? 2. Is Vladimir Putin long-standing leadership the cause of poor IR between Moscow and Washington? 3. What can be done to improve the U.S.-Russian relations? Research Methods The phenomenon that will be addressed in the study is status of U.S.-Russian relations in consideration of the changes within the international system after the Cold War as well as break down of the Soviet Union. For this reason, the study will use case study as a method for analysing this phenomenon. Case study, as a qualitative research methodology is considered suitable for the study since it will enable both the researcher as well as the reader to comprehend the implication behind actions as well as events and the context wherein such actions and events occurred. Imperatively, a qualitative research design is considered crucial for the study it will clearly describe the phenomena based on IR theory, which relies on the context as well as meaning so. Furthermore, case studies are valuable for applying evidence of policy actors’ writings as well as private speech to investigate a political theory. The study will widely utilise such evidence, particularly the disciplined interpretive case study so as to explain or interpret an event through application of IR theory. Therefore, the study will utilise process tracing so as to describe the case study. According to Beach and Pedersen (2013, 145), process tracing is a technique, which traces the process of decision-making by means of the events’ structure and sequence as well as the actors’ testimony justifying the reason for their action. Basically, a case study is a research method used in the behavioural as well as social scientific research, and is used to achieve a comprehensive contextualised analysis of social relations in a social environment. Generally, the case study will use a number of data collection techniques such as documentary analysis, interview and observation. Case study is naturally exploratory and will be used to generate hypothesis as well as models of IR between U.S. and Russia, which will subsequently be analysed by means of quantitative surveys. Understandably, it is hard to directly generalise the broader social state of affairs from the one case study findings. Basically, case studies are used in policy analysis, and will be used so as to give an in depth understanding of IR process in the international system context and comparing it with U.S.-Russian relations. As it will be evidenced in the study, Russia IR practices focus on the collective wellbeing of its country while on the other hand, U.S. IR practices focuses on values of American nationalism. For this reason, the leadership of Russia has since the end of Cold War emphasised on reviving the country and utilising its achievements so as to make Russians proud of their nation. Since taking the realm of power, Vladimir Putin mission as well as foreign policy has consistently focussed on respect as well as power. The foreign policy of U.S., on the other hand, concentrates on values like human rights, capitalism and freedom. The U.S. and Russia idiosyncratic nationalisms are based on their political cultures, which are prevailing nowadays in the international system. In the 21st century, U.S-Russia relations have experienced a lot of constraints; making it possible to understand the events in the world through the political culture lens of these two countries. Both United States and Russia have differed not just because of interests that are conflicting interests, but because they understand events in the international system differently. Basically, they have diverging attitudes because their view on the world is based on their own conflicting political cultures. Therefore, IR scholars in are limited in utilising the language of US and Russia political culture’s so as to describe the political events that have led to poor IR between the two countries. 4.0 Sources In the study, the primary sources will include the original documents experienced or generated contemporaneously with the focus on IR between U.S. and Russia. In this regard, the primary sources will include contemporary accounts of U.S.-Russian relations, personal observations, and scholarly perspectives. Imperatively, they will involve those presenting the original thinking, sharing new information as well as reporting a discovery: peer-reviewed Journal articles, diaries, survey research, government agencies or organizations records (treaty, annual report, and constitution), letters, newspaper articles, video and oral recordings, photographs, speeches, and work of literature. On the other hand, the ssecondary: source will involve works which interpret, asses, or examine an historical phenomenon, era, or event through primary sources. For this reason, the secondary sources will offer information interpretation concerning the IR between Moscow and Washington. They will provide critiques or reviews; literature reviews, biographical works, newspaper and magazine, articles, books, criticisms, commentaries, and histories. The study will require data form both primary and historical sources as well as empirical studies. Imperatively, the collected data will be directly relevant to the identified research question. Besides that, the sources of data will be retrieved from a number of databases, which includes US State Department, UN treaty series, Homeland Security Digital Library, UQ Library, and Wiley Online Library Summary In summary, the study will focus on the international relations between United States of America and Russia. As it will be evidenced in the study, the relationship between US and Russia plays a crucial role in the world affairs, but for decades has remained tense. Still, the two countries have collaborated on areas where they have mutual interests, but Russia seems to be more ambitions and desires to be recognised as a global power just like the United States. The study will use case studies research method so as to collect in-depth information concerning the IR between United States and Russia. The IR between these two countries, which will be the focus of the study, can be improved only if both countries invest political capital with the intention of improving their relations. Even though, both countries have put much effort to ensure collaboration since the end of Cold War, the failure has been anchored on the fact that both Russia and U.S have a number of common interests. Bibliography Abashina, Galina A. "Impact of Political Culture on U.S-­‐Russian Relations in the Beginning of the 21st Century." Thesis, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA, 2012. Åslund, Anders, and Andrew Kuchins. Pressing the “Reset Button” on US-Russia Relations. Policy Brief, Washington, DC: Peterson Institute for International Economics, 2009. Beach, Derek, and Rasmus Brun Pedersen. Process-Tracing Methods: Foundations and Guidelines. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 2013. Beridze, Elchin. "The United States-Russian Relations in post-Cold War Era: the Hidden Cold War in South-Caucasus (1991-2008)." Thesis, Eastern Mediterranean University, Gazimağusa, Northern Cyprus, 2009. Graham, Thomas. "Russia Back at the Center of U.S. Foreign Policy." The Aspen Institute 25, no. 1 (2010): 9-13. Griffiths, Martin, Terry O'Callaghan, and Steven C. Roach. International Relations: The Key Concepts. Florence, KY : Taylor & Francis, 2008. Kaczmarski, Marcin. THE FRAGILE ‘RESET’. The balance and the prospects for changes in Russian-US relations. Policy Briefs, Warsaw, Poland: OÊrodek Studiów Wschodnich, 2011. Katz, Mark N. "Can Russian-US Relations Improve?" Strategic Studies Quarterly, 2014: 129-141. Pifer, Steven. Reversing the Decline: An Agenda for U.S.-Russian Relations in 2009. POLICY PAPER, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2009. Research Methodology. Interpretivism (interpretivist). 2015. http://research-methodology.net/research-philosophy/interpretivism/ (accessed December 6, 2015). Selvaggio, Angie. Ideas, Identity, and Interests: A Study on U.S.-Russian Relations in the Post Cold War World. Thesis, Birmingham, Alabama: Samford University, 2012. Sprinz, Detlef F., and Yael Wolinsky-Nahmias. Introduction: Methodology in International Relations Research. Ann Arbor, Michigan: The University of Michigan Press, 2004. Suslov, Dmitry. The Us-Russia Relations After The “Reset”: Pragmatism Or A New Confrontation? . Working Paper, Moskva, Russia: National Research University Higher School of Economics, 2013. Troitskiy, Mikhail. The Security Dilemma and “Two-Level Games” in U.S.-Russia Relations. PONARS Eurasia Policy Memo, Moscow: MGIMO/MacArthur Foundation, 2011. Read More