Russian Foreign Policy

Introduction:
In modern form of international relationship, it is very difficult to understand the foreign policy of Russian Federation. Regardless of the challenges like integration and globalization, Russia is still deeply in the illusion of hegemony that they had in cold war. There have been some problems related to political and economical transformation, beside that Russia is still the worlds biggest country and due to nuclear and other raw material ability it has a significant importance as well as influence in international system. For the purpose of analysis the foreign activities of Russia, theory of realism would be a very interesting tool for explanation regardless of the challenges like integration and globalization.
Why do states want authority?
There is a very simple and realistic justification behind why states contest to gain more power. The justification is based on five simple assumptions related to international system. Looking at these assumptions individually, none of them suggest that states attempt to gain more power at other states’ expense. But indeed, when they are combined together, they illustrate a world of endless security rivalry.
First assumption states that the individual or the actors, which have great powers, directs politics of the world and the system they work in is an anarchic system. This does not mean that there would be a disorder or chaos. Anarchy is a kind of ordering principle. The meaning of anarchy is very simple. Anarchy is a system in which there would be no ultimate arbiter or any centralized authority that would be above the state. The synonym of anarchy is hierarchy. It is also a kind of ordering principle but is related to domestic politics.

Second assumption is related to the military capabilities of a state. As each state has it own potential in this regard and so they can also negatively influence it neighbor. The capability many vary state to state and it many also change as time passes.
Third assumption is related to the uncertainty regarding the intentions of different states. Gaining knowledge related to different states that whether they are willing to use force to change balance of power, or they are pleased with the power they have and are not willing to use any force to change the balance. This states which are will to use force are know as revisionist states and states are satisfied with the power they have are called status quo states. It is indeed very difficult and sometime even impossible to determine with certainty what the real intensions of a state are. Intension can’t be verified empirically as military capabilities.
Intensions are difficult to determine because they are with in the minds of an individual who is making decisions. It is argued that decision makers may disclose its intension during a speech or when writing a policy document and then those could be analyzed. The limitation of this argument is that an individual may lie and hide its true intension. Even if some how it is possible to determine the intensions of a state presently, there could be no way to learn other states’ future intensions. It is not possible to determine who will be the next foreign policy maker and whether they would be having an aggressive intention. So the argument remains that a sate can never say for certain that what kind of state they are in contact with. Status quo state one or a revisionist one.
Fourth assumption is that a states ultimate objective is survival. A state is always keen to maintain territorial integrity and autonomy regarding domestic politics. There are indeed other goals such as human rights and prosperity, but when it comes to survival they all are back seated. This is because if a state can’t survive they can not pursue such goals.
The fifth and the last assumption is that there are times when states acts very rationally and are also sometime capable of making different strategies that increase their chances of survival. But on the other hand, it is also true that they are sometime miscalculated. Miscalculating is mostly due to inadequate information. In this world it is very difficult to obtain correct information and due to such information serious mistakes happens.
As mentioned above, individually none of the assumptions say that states would compete among themselves for power. Indeed third assumption mentions a revisionist state which acts aggressively of power. But it does not tell us why states fight for power. But when these assumptions are put together and combined, such condition arises where a state is not only preoccupied with balance of power but is also trying to acquire different incentives to increase its power even at the expense of other states.
It is true that great powers do fear each other. This is because there is very little trust and they are also worried about intentions of each other. The greatest fear among them is that they have power, capability and even motive to attack each other. This fear leads to anarchic system of operation where there is no one looking after when a state is been threatened by other state. There is no one that receives the emergency call when every a states dials the emergency help line.
The degree of fear may vary form state to state and case to case. But it could not be reduced to a level of insignificance. The cost of letting this happen is very high. International politics is indeed a very deadly business and it has a potential to start a war which could result in mass killings both off and on the battle field and even can lead to destruction of the state.
Powerful states must perceive that they have to operate in a world where they have to help themselves. The only way of survival for them is to relay on them. This is because those other states are possible treats and there is no one they could be contacted in case of an attack. This not excludes the possibility of alliance when are indeed useful while handling a dangerous adversities. Ultimately, it always come to a point where a state have to put its own interests first leaving behind other states and also supposed international community.
In addition to fear of other states, also knowing that they live in a self-help world, a State realizes that the only way to survive is to gain power. The reason behind gaining power is very simple. If a state is more powerful as compared to its competitors there is also a less chance of attack. For example, no one in Western Hemisphere could try to attack USA because it is relatively more powerful then its neighbors.
This is the justification that drives a State, especially great powers find ways that could shift the power in such a way that it is fruitful for them. What a state wants is at least no one could gain power on their expense. This all results in a system that forces every state act and think in a way that is more like revisionist state even those that could be satisfied in status quo.
The Russian foreign policy and the concept of structural realism
Not residing on internal political preferences and on the global system, the distribution of power along with the global system founds to be inside the structure, which is explained by Kenneth Waltz in his theory. It is also said that in one's own help nature of the states foreign policy along with the global relations, the elementary anarchy role has been evaluated by the structural realism. In the global environment, the main ingredient of the behavior of state is that the theory which evaluating the global ties on the height of the structure system is the arranged stream of realism.

During the period of cold war, the international relations played a very helpful role in explaining and analyzing different blocs and the leaders of the countries. The structural attitudes were the main things that lead to high potential for assessing the order of bipolar. The two types of approaches that are offensive and defensive realism, were made a part of the debate, and structural stream further contributed towards it. Both realisms stated different ideas and views regarding the foreign policies and military of state. However, both of them relates to order of bipolar. The defensive realism supports the survival of state and it considers it as its main objective. Moreover, the present states that are the strongest should adopt a moderate policy, for the reason that the powers have not been achieved yet. On the other hand, offensive realism assumes that there are wide incentives and advantages through the international anarchy. The incentives would include expansion. Furthermore, the states that are striving to increase and maximize their military powers. However, this structural realism theory has been widely influenced by the ineffectiveness of bipolar order and the decline of USSR. The main serious problem that was anticipated was fast but peaceful changes in the global order. Practically this contradicted with the predictions of Kenneth Waltz. The possibilities were regarding the disagreement of cataclysmic through which cold war would end. According to Erik Jones, the problems of structural realism that were faced were anticipated and he further pointed out that this realism could not consider internal determinants that broke up Soviet Unions. It was further stated by William C. Wohforth that the decline of USSR was not entirely due to a decline in Soviet power but the decline of perception by Soviet elites was also one of the reason. The ability to explain and respond to the structural realism seemed to be very problematic especially due to the imposed policy by Russia and refusal of Moscow to accept a new place in the system. One could easily notice that there had been a clear objection from Moscow in accepting a new place. By observing their foreign activities one could figure out the role that it has planned to play internationally, especially the global aspirations of Russia and the lost position due to falling of USSR. Russia further acted in opposition to the policy of US after the ineffectiveness of bipolar order. Russia also criticized unipolar order that was that was introduced by Washington and rather a new system of multipolar was demanded that could reflect ‘’legitimate’’ position of the federation of Russia Similarly, the fierce opposition of Moscow towards the operation of NATO in the US and Kosovo had been a good example. It was perceived that the Russian objectives were fully ignored and Moscow was not allowed to take part in the affairs of the world

Above all this, it is observed that the main focus of structural realism is on the internal determinants such as political regimes, ideology or political leaders that do not possibly reflect the foreign Russian policy, along with the entire structure of international system. Russian policies have remained very complex in nature, Russia however enjoys the largest position as a country but its economic capabilities has become very limited and there had been a decline in international position after the cold war ended. The policies of Moscow still include a tradition of central government as well as the dominant relationships with the neighboring countries. All of this demonstrates the centralization process in the political life of Russia when the president was Vladimir Putin along with the Georgian war