EU-Russia relations

Barysch, Katinka

doi:10.4324/9780203320181_chapter_2

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Critics often argue that this attitude is identical with the Russian notion, which perceives Europe as a 'modernization resource' rather than a 'modernization partner' (Barysch 2005). Furthermore, the concept of automatic overspill from economic to non-economic fields has often been questioned.…”

Section: Interpreting the Mission: The Eu's Russia Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

Relational locomotive or apple of discord? – Bilateral perceptions of the economic cooperation

Deák

Кузнецов

2019

Journal of Contemporary European Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article provides a typology and a comparative analysis of academic studies on EU-Russian economic cooperation since its formal inception in the early 1990s. The authors strive to present a contextual analysis, explaining how the bilateral trends have been perceived in the respective academic environments. On this basis, the paper accentuates problems of academic dialogue between EU and Russian researchers, like constraints of mutual internalization, language-determination, and different research agendas. Four European discourses on the role of economic relations in EU-Russian relations are identified: Normative one (economic and noneconomic interlinkages are inseparable and structurally determined), 'Business case' discourse (economic relations constitute an inherent system), 'Neo-Ostpolitik' discourse (establish reliable and trustful relations between the EU and Russia) and 'Economic statecraft' discourse (maximizing EU power and disciplining Russia). Russian publications are usually more policy-oriented compared to Western studies. We trace four periods: Illusions of Euro optimism during Russian market transformation (1992--1999); Adaptation to the EU enlargement and Putin's attempts to establish a partnership with leading EU member states (1999)(2000)(2001)(2002)(2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008); Crisis in EU-Russian relations (2008)(2009)(2010)(2011)(2012)(2013)(2014)(2015) and New Cold War (since 2015). KEYWORDSEU-Russian economic cooperation; EU-Russian energy dialogue; investment climate; foreign direct investment (FDI)

show abstract

Section: Interpreting the Mission: The Eu's Russia Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

Relational locomotive or apple of discord? – Bilateral perceptions of the economic cooperation

Deák

Кузнецов

2019

Journal of Contemporary European Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Elsewhere, where there are alternative 'poles of attraction' or distraction, as in Moldova, Georgia or Ukraine, uncertainties engendered by the EU compound those created by the awareness of Russia's ambivalence to parts of the former Soviet Union becoming integrated into Western institutions. Barysch and Grant (2004), at the height of the Orange Revolution, wrote of the possibility of a damaging tug of war over Ukraine's future.…”

Section: The Enp and Its Ambiguitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Avoiding framing Ukraine's position as either pro-Europe or pro-Russia was regarded by many as vital even if, as Barysch and Grant (2004) suggested, "the EU may want to rethink its long-standing position that Ukraine 'has as much reason to be in the EU as New Zealand'", a remark attributed to Romano Prodi.…”

Section: Understanding Ambiguities and Tensionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Construction of Ambiguity and the Limits of Attraction: Europe and its Neighbourhood Policy

Edwards

2008

Journal of European Integration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The US has established the military bases in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. The Baltic States, Slovakia, Romania and Bulgaria have joined NATO and the US intends to establish its military bases in some of these countries 69 .…”

Section: Russia's Strategy Towards Eurasiamentioning

confidence: 99%

Global Geopolitical Developments and Opportunities for Lithuania’s Foreign Policy

Motieka¹,

Statkus²,

Daniliauskas³

2005

Lithuanian Annual Strategic Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The changes in geostrategy of the United States have become clear after the events of September 11. These changes have encouraged the reformation and adaptation process of the geopolitical codes of the other main geopolitical actors. Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Russia and China are facing the necessity either to adapt to the transformed US geostrategy or to project and implement alternative geopolitical combinations striving for its neutralisation. The change of the geopolitical codes of the main geopolitical actors (including various alternatives variants) would shape the main tendencies of global geopolitical development at the beginning of the 21st century. It is necessary to evaluate the action scenarios of the main geopolitical actors in order to identify the opportunities of Lithuania's geopolitical code and also Lithuania's foreign policy transformation in the global geopolitical environment since the possibilities of Lithuania's foreign policy directly depend on the changes of the global geopolitical situation. The analysis of global geopolitical development and the identification of opportunities of Lithuania's foreign policy are based both on static and dynamic approaches. This study identifies the interests of the US, Russia, major powers of the European Union (EU) and China in the global geopolitical environment. Such identification sets the conditions for Lithuania's possible location in the geostrategic plans of the great powers and that is the static part of the analysis. The dynamic part of the analysis relies on the model of the strategic choice and presents the main geostrategic alternatives of the most important geopolitical actors. They depend on the changes of interaction among the geopolitical subjects. The models of this interaction allow identifying possible global geopolitical scenarios and evaluating Lithuania's eventual geopolitical role in the changing geopolitical space.

show abstract

EU-Russia relations

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

Relational locomotive or apple of discord? – Bilateral perceptions of the economic cooperation

Relational locomotive or apple of discord? – Bilateral perceptions of the economic cooperation

The Construction of Ambiguity and the Limits of Attraction: Europe and its Neighbourhood Policy

Global Geopolitical Developments and Opportunities for Lithuania’s Foreign Policy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About