Understanding Putin: The politics of identity and geopolitics in Russian foreign policy discourse
| Author | Kari Roberts |
| Published date | 01 March 2017 |
| Date | 01 March 2017 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0020702017692609 |
| Subject Matter | Scholarly Essays |
International Journal
2017, Vol. 72(1) 28–55
!The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0020702017692609
journals.sagepub.com/home/ijx
Scholarly Essay
Understanding Putin:
The politics of identity
and geopolitics in
Russian foreign policy
discourse
Kari Roberts
Department of Economics, Justice, and Policy Studies,
Mount Royal University, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Abstract
Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea and the subsequent deterioration in its relations
with the West have led many analysts to adopt a narrow view of Vladimir Putin’s foreign
policy motivations, chalking them up to old-school geopolitics. This paper makes the
case that the traditional structural explanations for Russian foreign policy that are
dominant within the discipline of international relations do not adequately consider
the influence of identity in Putin’s emerging foreign policy narrative. Putin’s narrative
is shaped by, and shapes, a discourse about cultural and historical ties with Russian
borderlands, as well as by the cultural and security vulnerabilities generated by the
West’s treatment of Russia, evidenced by the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO). This discourse has underscored a more militant foreign policy
turn under Putin in which he is prepared to protect and defend Russia’s interests at high
cost; Russia’s actions in Crimea exemplify this. This connection between identity and
foreign policy in Putin’s Russia demands attention if we hope to gain a better grasp of
Russian foreign policy under his leadership.
Keywords
Russia, foreign policy, identity, Putin, geopolitics
Introduction
Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea may have been a transformational moment in
global politics. Since then, many have been awaiting Russian president Vladimir
Corresponding author:
Kari Roberts, Department of Economics, Justice, and Policy Studies, Mount Royal University, 4825 Mount
Royal Gate SW, Calgary, Alberta, T3E 6K6, Canada.
Email: kroberts@mtroyal.ca
Putin’s next move. Has he accomplished in Ukraine all he set out to do, or was
Crimea the first salvo in an attempt to revise the post-Cold War geopolitical order?
Former United States (US) secretary of state and Democratic presidential candi-
date Hillary Clinton likened Putin’s actions in Crimea to those of Hitler’s Germany
prior to the Second World War.
1
Should Putin have been taken more seriously
when he first lamented the demise of the Soviet Union upon taking power in 2000?
There has been no shortage of speculation about Putin’s motives among inter-
national relations (IR) and Russia scholars. Overwhelmingly, there has been a
chorus of skepticism about Russia’s declared motives for military action in
Ukraine, with many prominent scholars warning of Putin’s revanchist foreign
policy goals.
2
The prevailing wisdom holds that geopolitics and balancing against
Western power are Putin’s game; other motivations, notably those Putin has him-
self articulated, have received less attention. Such an oversimplification represents a
long-standing failure to appreciate the multiple influences on Russian foreign
policy. This paper does not rule out the presence of cultural and geopolitical
resentment in post-Soviet Russia and the resulting security-based vulnerabilities
that influence Russian foreign policy; however, it suggests that there are factors
that animate Russian foreign policy under Putin that have been delegitimized in
mainstream analysis.
Putin’s actions are not simply guided by old fashioned geopolitics;
3
analysts
need not look any further than Putin’s own words to conclude that Russian foreign
policy under his leadership is shaped by, and shapes, a sense of Russian identity
that is highly influenced by its relations with the West, particularly the US.
This connection is acknowledged among scholars
4
and it is also visible in
Russia’s 2014 actions in Ukraine. Drawing on the principle of privileging discourse
as an analytical tool in foreign policy analysis,
5
as well as the premise that ideas
shape practice, but also that practice shapes ideas, this paper emphasizes identity
and the role of ideas in shaping Russian foreign policy.
6
Much scholarship seeking to explain Russia’s actions in Ukraine has
underemphasized the interplay between identity and foreign policy in favour of
accentuating Putin’s misguided notions of realpolitik. While a structural focus on
1. Philip Rucker, ‘‘Hillary Clinton says Putin’s actions are like ‘what Hitler did back in the 30s,’’’
Washington Post, 5 March 2014, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/03/
05/hillary-clinton-says-putins-action-are-like-what-hitler-did-back-in-the-30s/ (accessed 13 January
2017).
2. See Roy Allison, ‘‘Russian ‘deniable’ intervention in Ukraine: How and why Russia broke the
rules,’’ International Affairs 90, no. 6 (2014): 1255–1297, and Lilia Shevtsova, ‘‘The Maidan and
beyond: The Russia factor,’’ Journal of Democracy 25, no. 3 (July 2014): 74–82.
3. Walter Russell Mead, ‘‘The return of geopolitics: The revenge of the revisionist powers,’’ Foreign
Affairs (May/June 2014), https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2014-04-17/return-geopoli-
tics (accessed 13 January 2017).
4. Gertjan Dijkink, National Identity and Geopolitical Visions: Maps of Pride and Pain (London:
Routledge, 1996), 5.
5. Lene Hansen and Ole Waever, eds., European Integration and National Identity: The Challenge of
the Nordic States (London: Routledge, 2002).
6. Vincent Pouliot, International Security in Practice: The Politics of NATO–Russia Diplomacy
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010).
Roberts 29
To continue reading
Request your trial