Russia: Is it (re)emerging Superpower

Significant shifts of power between states, not to consider regions, happen occasionally and are unusually peaceful. At the beginning twentieth century, the hegemonic order and the ambitious states—Germany and Japan lost to adapt to each other and, this conflict ended in devastating large parts of the globe with a loss of millions of lives. However, these days global order or global power is shifting and, it is diffusing into multiple ways. It goes from one state or multiple states to another—which is called, of course, by the famous phrase, “the decline of the west and the rise of the rest.” But also power diffuses. It flows away from the states to other actors, to other institutions or wired individuals or groups of individuals. 

Nevertheless, in global politics, the central assumption of the shifting power paradigm is the rise of new major states—the primary example is China—Within a comparatively short period—it has reached second place in almost all global rankings, certainly behind the United States. Additionally, it is part of an acronym BRICS—which stands for Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.

Historically, the BRICS is an independent club of prominent countries of which no single affiliate has ever officially applied for membership. The concept was neologized by an investment banker Jim O'Neil of Goldman Sachs in a 2001 publication, “Building Better Economic Bricks.”O'Neil is a banker and he was primarily interested, of course, in investment opportunities. He thought that time that these four economies would offer great, the best, prospects for growth and expansion, even including the Western investment. 

    Source of photo: SIPRI Military Expenditure Database, 2020

From a cooperative of rising economies, BRICS increasingly developed into a geopolitical concept, indicating the five major rising powers at the global level—Brazil, Russia, India and China and South Africa, apparently were the best challenges of the International Liberal or Western order; which was, and still, is controlled by the United States, and to a minor extent, Europe. However, now the big question is; Is the BRICS notion more than a catchy phrase and, how do we know (re)emerging power? And do these five countries have plenty in common to put them in the very same category of emerging powers? I will focus on Russia because Russia is maybe the most unusual member of the BRICS club, and as it seems, is re-emerging country. Hence, to answer the above-mentioned question, I argue that there are three conditions or criteria for the re-emerging country: 

To begin with the first condition, A growing political weight or influencing international relations.

The second criteria is an increasingly growing economy.

The third criteria, which of course, is the last one, is having the dream of replacing existent power relations.

Now, if we come to Russia in economic means, it is one of the top ten leading countries in the global GDP after the two leading global economy--the United States and China.

Russia's GDP per capita heads about 40th—which is extensively more lowering, of course, than the United States but higher than China's. However, Russia leads expressly high in some geographically relevant rankings. Not only is it the worlds' biggest country (it covers about one-sixth of the earth) but it too borders most of the world's sensitive and explosive regions. Additionally, it's one of the world's largest energy suppliers and a major arms producer.

Historically, The Russian Federation is the replacement state, as you know, to the Soviet Union—which during the Cold War was one of the two main global superpowers. The Soviet Union was frozen and seldom even admired far beyond its borders. the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 and Russia, one of the union's 15 constituent republics, became independent and its successor. During the 1990s, the country moved through an unprecedented political and economic disaster. Russia converted only a shadow of the former Soviet Union. It was only during the 2000s, under the presidency of Vladimir Putin that Russia slowly re-emerged again. 

The critical factor was not so much the administrative capabilities of its leadership, which were generally low, but enormous price rises for oil and gas on the world market. Russia finally recovered from its economic malaise and Putin became a great and powerful leader. The Russian Federation succeeded to restore its position as a great power, possibly not a global great power but certainly a regional one. 

Russia's evolving position in international organizations is, of course, exactly associated with changes in the country's foreign policy. From 1991, that is, since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the country's foreign and international relations moved through complex stages, obviously different stages. These progressive stages were all almost associated with the country's internal condition, clearly, but also with its global environment. 

Given that Russia is the replacement state to the Soviet Union, one of the two significant superpowers throughout the cold war, and that Russia yet is the largest, and one of the more strong countries in the world, it has a wide variety of global and regional institutional alliances. In international relations terms, I would argue, Russia is a globalized power. And this is of huge significance to Russia and the Russian people, but also to the rest of the world. 

Source of the photo: https://en.interaffairs.ru/article/the-european-union-and-russia-to-talk-or-not-to-talk-and-about-what/

There are very several global problems that can be efficiently dealt with without the dynamic cooperation of Russia—Conflict resolution in the Middle East and Afghanistan. Terrorism in the Caucasus and Central Asian, yet also the future of European integration, and other issues which require the cooperation of Russia to be conclusively answered, the climate issue, water, and finally, energy. 

Russia as membership of International Organizations

Russia is one of the five permanent members of The United Nations Security Council, and this is one of the country's most significant international privileges some would argue--which Russia employs greatly, and strategically, particularly to block actions which it counts disturbing to its national interest. for instance, a potential invasion in the Syrian civil war is one of it.

Russia's cooperation in international organisations is a character, clearly, of its foreign policies in common. And Russia's foreign policy is formed, I would debate, by three variables here: 

The first one is its domestic resources or capabilities. The second variable is its environment regional and global, and the final one is the goals of a country’s leadership

Russia's Foreign Policy in the last 20 years

The Russian foreign policy during the last twenty years can be divided into two separate stages—which are loosely combined with its significant leaders—Boris Nicolai Yeltsin and Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin. When the most substantial part of the 1990s under Yeltsin, Russia's domestic resources were very limited, and its international environment was extremely unfriendly. The country was only so gradually recovering from the downfall of the Soviet Union, and the international arena was controlled and dominated by defeat and marginalization. The West was in a triumphant mood, so Yeltsin had few other alternatives but to obey this very similarly West. Russia's foreign policy was unprecedentedly pro-Western during the 1990s.  

The Russian Federation perceives itself or considers itself as a self-sufficient, revisionist power.so, the question that arises here is What are its major foreign policy features? 
To answer this question, it has three dimensions, first: 
Russia is an aggressive, and revisionist power, it has a clear goal to change the contemporary rules of the game. The second one, Russian foreign policy is a policy by issue rather than by principle—which is very different from the early Soviet Union's foreign policy—That was ideologically motivated. Russia's foreign policy isn't. The only ideology that the current Russian leadership knows is the anticipated national interest. 
The third one, Russian foreign policy is pragmatic and imperative. It has a very sharp aim. That is the strengthening of the current domestic order in Russia, and the strengthening of Russia's position beyond its borders, internationally. And these two goals are very, closely related. 

Russia Its Neighboring Involvement

The foreign policy of Yeltsin, preference was very clear, to have reliable, efficient relations with the West. Likewise, Putin also has a clear stake in useful relationships with the west. But, his real preference seems to lie elsewhere, in the country's neighbourhood. Putin appears especially engaged in empowering Russia's power and leadership among its neighbouring countries, in other words, in the area that used to be the Soviet Union, including Ukraine. In Russian political lingo, this part of the region is sometimes associated with the so-called "near abroad"—which defines it, obviously, from the real abroad. In other words, Russia claims to have specific privileges in this region. The former Soviet Union, with the exception perhaps of the Baltic states, is seen as Russia's sphere of control. 

So, now the question is, what are the overall goals in Russia's neighbourhood? 
First of all, I'm arguing that Russia desires to build more comprehensive security on its border. Secondly, it seeks to maximize its economic possibilities. And it wants to protect the well-being of ethnic Russians. Finally, most importantly possibly, Russian regards it as a condition of its vast power status.

Soviet Union Era and International Organizations 

There was a wide variety of international institutions and organizations operating in the former Soviet Union. And really, Russia controls most of them. To name the most significant institutions it is the Custom's Union—which Russia desires to annexe Ukraine, and there's the Commonwealth of the Independent States—which is the oldest organization in the region. The Collective Security Treaty Organization, CSTO is another one—which resembles NATO and also there is the Shanghai Corporation Organization, which includes the People's Republic of China. Now, most of these organizations come short in terms of investment of resources and policy coordination. Membership and degree of sharing have shifted dramatically, and no two states in the area have an identical history of memberships. 

Due to its hegemonic position in the region, and the volatility of these organizations, the Russian Federation prefers bilateral over multilateral ties in the countries that are its region. These bilateral ties exercise multiple forms; Political linkages include diplomatic and financial support by Russia to friendly governmental or non-governmental individuals and organizations. 

Also, military ties are especially significant in relations between Russia and its neighbours. Russian troops have intervened on several occasions, mainly in conflict zones, and most newly, in 2014, in Crimea. 

On the other side, economic interests are another significant operator of Russian foreign policy, also in its neighbourhood. Russia's economic relations with its neighbouring countries are extremely nontransparent and tricky to untangle, but the bottom line is always the same. 

They are assumed to maintain the augmentation of Russia's state interest, and those of its leaders. And these two issues are closely linked. So, it is clear to argue that for the first time in its history, Russia is being ruled by the very same people who also own the country.

To conclude, in this article, I explained the various dramatic shifts in Russian foreign policy from the late Cold War era. For a great power Russia—the wide crisis in the 1990s was a traumatic experience. So, it is undoubtedly clear that Russia is a re-emerging superpower in today's international politics and will remain. Indeed, Russia desires to be regarded seriously, and it needs to be taken seriously, in everybody's interests, whether Russia is weak and compliant as it was in the 1990s, or whether strong and more confrontational, as it is today.