Statecraft in U.S.-Russia relations meaning, dilemmas, and significance

The article introduces the special issue of International Trends dedicated to the current tendencies in the evolution of statecraft. It sets the analytical agenda for other special issue contributions by discussing the meaning of the term “statecraft” and illustrating the concept through several dilemmas that policymakers commonly face when choosing foreign policy toolkits. The authors posit that, at base, a meaningful definition of statecraft subsumes the ends, means, and ways embraced by a government in its attempt to exert influence over another state short of the resort to brute military force, either directly or via pressures on key non-state stakeholders. The article goes on to highlight how a clear-cut formulation of a country’s “national interests” may, on one hand, serve as lodestars for the national bureaucracy and draw “red lines” for the country’s adversaries, but on the other hand, entail a difficult and politically costly choice between mutually exclusive priorities for the country’s foreign policy goals. The authors also discuss the impact of technological innovation on the evolution of great power statecraft. They describe a variant of the security dilemma arising from the choice between immediate weaponization of new technology, on one hand, and refraining from such move with the aim of avoiding an arms race or escalation of existing conflicts, on the other. In its turn, developing a strong identity as a means of statecraft for an international player may increase that player’s power of commitment, but at the same time, foreclose attractive policy options that cannot be implemented because they could compromise the chosen identity. Pioneering the use of big data in the study of statecraft, the authors find that, notwithstanding very different power positions, traditions, and interests, U.S. and Russian discourse surrounding great power competition resemble each other more than commonly acknowledged.

1. Baldwin D. (2020). Economic Statecraft: New Edition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 472 p.

2. Charap S., Shapiro J. (2015). Why a new Cold War can be avoided, Order from Chaos Blog, Brookings Institution. October 7. URL: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2015/10/07/why-anew-cold-war-can-be-avoided/ (accessed: 20.03.2021).

3. Charap S., Shapiro J. (2016). US–Russian relations: The middle cannot hold, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Vol. 72. No. 3. P. 150–155.

4. Crowley-Vigneau A., Le Saux F. (2021a). Language and Statecraft: an Old Tool for New Goals? Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 19. No. 1e. P. 92–106.

5. Crowley-Vigneau A., Le Saux F. (2021b). Language and Statecraft: an Old Tool for New Goals? Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 19. No. 1r. P. 120–138.

6. Fukuyama F. (2018). Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 218 p.

7. Gavin F. (2019). Thinking Historically: A Guide to Strategy and Statecraft. War on the Rocks, November 19. URL: https://warontherocks.com/2019/11/thinking-historically-a-guide-for-strategy-andstatecraft/ (accessed: 20.03.2021).

8. Golunov S. (2021a). Energy-Related Statecraft: the Cases of Russia and the USA. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 19. No. 1e. P. 41–54.

9. Golunov S. (2021b). Energy-Related Statecraft: the Cases of Russia and the USA. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 19. No. 1r. P. 56–73.

10. Istomin I. (2020). Mirazhi innovatsij: “vklad” tekhnologicheskogo progressa v voennuju nestabil’nost’ [Innovation Mirage: The Role of Technological Uncertainty in Military Instability]. Vestnik MGIMOUniversiteta. Vol. 13. No. 6. P. 7–52. https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2020-6-75-7-52

11. Istomin I. (2021a). Management of Security Commitments in Asymmetric Alliances: the Case of Russia. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 19. No. 1e. P. 18–40.

12. Istomin I. (2021b). Management of Security Commitments in Asymmetric Alliances: the Case of Russia. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 19. No. 1r. P. 26–55.

13. Kahn H. (1965). On Escalation: Metaphors and Scenarios. New York: Praeger. 308 p.

14. Kaplan M. (1952). An Introduction to the Strategy of Statecraft, World Politics. Vol. 4. No. 4. P. 548–576.

15. Pagani C. (2021a). Migration Statecraft: Managing Migration Flows at a Bilateral Level. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 19. No. 1e. P. 79–91.

16. Pagani C. (2021b). Migration Statecraft: Managing Migration Flows at a Bilateral Level. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 19. No. 1r. P. 103–119.

17. Pifer S. (2015). Avoiding a new Cold War. Really? Order from Chaos Blog, Brookings Institution, October 13. URL: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2015/10/13/avoiding-a-new-cold-warreally/ (accessed: 20.03.2021).

18. Shibkova M. (2021a). Ad Hoc Alliances as Italian Key Statecraft Tool. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 19. No. 1e. P. 107–119.

19. Shibkova M. (2021b). Ad Hoc Alliances as Italian Key Statecraft Tool. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 19. No. 1r. P. 139–154.

20. Stulberg A.N., Darsi J.P. (2021a). The Cloud of Sanctions: Contending U.S.-Russian Approaches & Strategic Implications. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 19. No. 1e. P. 55–78.

21. Stulberg A.N., Darsi J.P. (2021b). The Cloud of Sanctions: Contending U.S.-Russian Approaches & Strategic Implications. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 19. No. 1r. P. 74–103.

22. Trenin D. (2020). Dealing with Biden’s America, Carnegie Moscow Center. February 8, URL: https:// carnegie.ru/commentary/83829 (accessed: 20.03.2021).