The Contested Terrain of Russian Foreign Policy: Key Debates and Critiques in Post-1917 Scholarship
Russian foreign policy has been a subject of significant scholarly debate since the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. The complex interplay of domestic politics, leadership dynamics, historical context, and international pressures has shaped Russia’s foreign relations from the Soviet era to the present day. This literature review seeks to critically analyze the key scholarly works that explore the evolution of Russian foreign policy, focusing on the period post-1917, with particular attention to the major theoretical approaches in understanding the motives and strategies behind Russian actions. The purpose of this review is to identify and evaluate the major questions posed by scholars, the answers they provide, and the areas where their arguments align or diverge. By analyzing the scope, methods, and evidence presented in key works, this review also aims to point out gaps in the current literature and suggest ways in which future scholarship can advance the understanding of Russian foreign policy.
The following sections will examine major scholarly perspectives on Russian foreign policy, including realist, liberal, and constructivist viewpoints. A critical assessment of these theories will highlight the strengths and limitations of each, particularly with regard to the agency of Russian leadership and the role of ideology. This review will further evaluate how these perspectives have been applied to key foreign policy decisions, such as Russia’s behavior during the Cold War, the post-Soviet transition, and more recent developments under President Vladimir Putin. By doing so, this paper will assess the scope of existing scholarship and suggest directions for future research.
Scholarly debates surrounding Russian foreign policy have revolved around several key questions:
Continuity vs. Change: One of the central debates is whether Russia’s foreign policy represents a continuation of Soviet strategic goals or whether it marks a new departure. This question addresses the legacy of the Soviet Union in shaping contemporary Russian diplomacy, particularly regarding its approach to international alliances, military strategy, and regional influence.
Agency vs. Structure: Another fundamental issue is the relative importance of individual agency (e.g., the role of specific leaders such as Lenin, Stalin, Yeltsin, or Putin) versus structural forces (e.g., international pressures, the balance of power, or economic factors). This question probes whether Russian foreign policy is predominantly shaped by the actions and ideologies of its leaders or by external and internal structural constraints.
Ideology vs. Pragmatism: The extent to which ideology plays a role in Russian foreign policy has been hotly debated, particularly regarding the role of Marxist-Leninist thought during the Soviet period and the influence of Putin’s “Eurasianist” vision in the post-Soviet era. Scholars question whether Russia’s foreign policy decisions are driven by ideological commitments or by pragmatic considerations of national interest and security.
These questions represent the core themes of the scholarship, and the answers provided by different authors vary widely, depending on their theoretical framework and the historical context they emphasize.
Realism, the dominant theoretical approach in international relations, asserts that the behavior of states is driven primarily by the need to secure power and ensure survival in an anarchic international system. Russian foreign policy, according to realist scholars, is shaped by the pursuit of national security, territorial integrity, and geopolitical influence.
Authors and Key Texts: Key realist scholars such as Alexander Tsygankov, John Mearsheimer, and Kenneth Waltz argue that Russia’s foreign policy has consistently sought to assert its dominance in the post-Soviet space and beyond. For example, Tsygankov (2017) contends that Russia’s foreign policy is driven by a combination of historical memory, national identity, and the imperative to maintain security buffers against NATO and the West.
Key Arguments: Realist explanations highlight Russia’s strategic responses to external threats, including its expansionist policies during the Soviet era and its contemporary actions, such as the annexation of Crimea in 2014. Realists argue that Russia’s need for security in an international system dominated by the United States and NATO explains much of its foreign policy behavior, such as military interventions in Ukraine, Georgia, and Syria.
Critiques: While realism provides a compelling explanation for Russia’s security concerns, it has been criticized for its overemphasis on material power and neglect of domestic factors. Gotz (2017), for instance, critiques realist accounts for oversimplifying Russian motivations, arguing that they fail to account for the ideological and cultural dimensions of Russian foreign policy, especially under Putin. Realism also tends to downplay the role of leadership and domestic politics in shaping foreign policy decisions, often reducing them to mere responses to external pressures.
Liberal theories of international relations emphasize the role of international institutions, economic interdependence, and the promotion of democracy in shaping state behavior. Liberal scholars argue that Russia’s foreign policy is influenced by its engagement with international organizations such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, and various arms control treaties.
Authors and Key Texts: Prominent liberal scholars such as Charles Kupchan and Dmitri Trenin have explored Russia’s potential to cooperate with Western institutions, particularly during the 1990s when Russia sought to integrate more closely into the global order. Kupchan (2010) suggests that the post-Soviet period was marked by a window of opportunity for liberal engagement, during which Russia pursued a foreign policy based on cooperation and diplomacy.
Key Arguments: Liberals argue that Russia’s foreign policy could have evolved differently if Russia had been integrated more fully into the Western-dominated international system. For example, liberal theorists point to Russia’s early participation in arms control treaties and its attempts to forge a partnership with NATO as evidence of its potential for cooperative engagement. This perspective views Russia’s increasingly confrontational stance post-2000 as a reaction to Western actions, such as NATO expansion and the perceived encroachment of Western values.
Critiques: Critics of liberal explanations, particularly in the wake of Russia’s actions in Crimea and Ukraine, argue that liberal approaches underestimate the importance of Russia’s domestic politics and national identity. Charap (2015) contends that liberal theories fail to account for the growing influence of nationalism and the role of Putin’s personal leadership in steering Russia towards an assertive and anti-Western foreign policy.
Constructivist scholars focus on the role of ideas, identity, and discourse in shaping state behavior. For constructivists, Russian foreign policy is not simply a reaction to material threats or a product of institutional frameworks; it is also deeply influenced by Russia’s sense of identity, historical narratives, and its interpretation of international norms.
Authors and Key Texts: Scholars such as Ted Hopf and Tsygankov (2012) have examined how Russian identity and the construction of a "self" in relation to the "other" (the West) influence its foreign policy decisions. Hopf’s work on the Soviet Union’s foreign policy and Tsygankov’s exploration of Russia’s post-Soviet “Eurasianism” both highlight how Russia’s identity plays a pivotal role in shaping its international actions.
Key Arguments: Constructivists argue that Russian foreign policy is not only a matter of power politics but also of self-definition and ideology. For example, the annexation of Crimea in 2014 was framed by Russian elites as a defense of Russian-speaking populations and a reclaiming of Russia’s rightful place in the world, reflecting a deeper sense of historical and cultural continuity from the Soviet era. Constructivists also highlight the growing emphasis on nationalism under Putin, which shapes Russia’s foreign policy in a way that transcends traditional security concerns.
Critiques: Constructivism has been criticized for its abstract focus on ideas and identity, which some scholars argue does not provide a sufficiently concrete explanation for state behavior. While constructivist explanations offer rich insights into the role of nationalism and ideology, they often struggle to explain the material factors driving Russia’s foreign policy decisions, such as economic interests or military strategy.
The methods used in these scholarly works vary considerably. Realist scholars typically rely on case studies, historical analysis, and geopolitical theory to substantiate their claims. For example, Mearsheimer’s (2014) analysis of NATO’s expansion is grounded in historical examples of Russia’s security concerns, supported by both qualitative case studies and quantitative data on military spending and geopolitical trends.
Liberal scholars often use institutional analysis and comparative studies, examining Russia’s participation in international treaties and its relationships with international organizations. Trenin (2014) uses empirical data on Russia’s post-Soviet integration into international structures to argue for the potential of liberal engagement, although he acknowledges the setbacks caused by Western actions.
Constructivist scholars, on the other hand, employ discourse analysis and qualitative methods to explore the role of identity and historical memory in Russian foreign policy. Tsygankov’s (2016) work on Eurasianism, for example, draws on primary sources such as speeches by Russian leaders and public opinion data to demonstrate how Russian national identity has shaped foreign policy decisions.
While each approach offers valuable insights, the methods employed often reflect the theoretical assumptions of the scholars. Realist and liberal scholars tend to focus on material factors, while constructivists emphasize ideational forces, with each group sometimes overlooking the strengths and limitations of the other’s approach.
Across the literature, there is general consensus on a few key points:
However, scholars disagree on several points:
Several gaps in the literature merit further exploration:
Future research should aim to integrate these factors into a more holistic understanding of Russian foreign policy, drawing on a combination of archival research, case studies, and qualitative analysis.
This literature review has critically engaged with major theoretical approaches to understanding Russian foreign policy post-1917, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of realist, liberal, and constructivist perspectives. While there is agreement on some fundamental factors—such as the importance of security and leadership—scholars disagree on the role of ideology, the balance of agency and structure, and the potential for cooperation with Western institutions. Gaps in the current literature suggest promising areas for further research, particularly regarding post-Soviet regional integration and the influence of non-state actors. By continuing to engage critically with these debates, scholars can deepen our understanding of Russian foreign policy and its implications for global security.
Copyright © 2012 - 2026 Apaxresearchers - All Rights Reserved.