پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 158 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 6,225 |
| تعداد مقالات | 67,685 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 115,001,612 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 89,680,562 |
تحلیل سیاست خارجی روسیه در قفقاز جنوبی بر پایۀ ژنوژئوپلیتیک | ||
| مطالعات اوراسیای مرکزی | ||
| دوره 13، شماره 2، مهر 1399، صفحه 645-664 اصل مقاله (716.79 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/jcep.2020.204960.449646 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| الهه کولایی* 1؛ میثم هادی پور2 | ||
| 1استاد مطالعات منطقه‌ای، دانشگاه تهران | ||
| 2دانشجوی دکتری جغرافیای سیاسی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس | ||
| چکیده | ||
| ژنوژئوپلیتیک یا ژئوپلیتیک ژنتیکی، یکی از بحث‌های جدید در ژئوپلیتیک انتقادی است. بر این اساس، هژمونی هر کشوری در محیط پیرامونی و فراتر از آن، باید از همگونی تاریخی و فرهنگی نیز برخوردار باشد. بدون وجود چنین شرایطی، دیگر نمی‌توان از هژمونی سخن گفت و تنها باید به مؤلفه‌های سخت‌افزاری، تهدید و قدرت نظامی صرف تکیه کرد. منطقۀ قفقاز جنوبی جمهوری آذربایجان، ارمنستان و گرجستان را در خود جای داده است. موقعیت ارتباطی این منطقه با جهان پیرامون در طول تـاریخ و امروز خطوط لولۀ انتقال منابع انرژی، شـرایط ویژه ژئوپلیتیکی و ژئواکونومیکی آن را مشخص می‌سازد. قفقاز جنوبی که در جنوب روسیه واقع شده است، از محیط‌های پیرامونی یا به اصطلاح «خارج نزدیک» روسیه به شمار می‌رود. این منطقه در سیاست خارجی روسیه اهمیت بسیاری دارد. این کشور می‌کوشد از تأثیر دومینویی بحران اوکراین در این مناطق بکاهد. با توجه به اهمیت این منطقه در سیاست خارجی روسیه، در این نوشتار، با روش کیفی و بر اساس توصیف و تحلیل به این پرسش پاسخ می‌دهیم که هژمونی روسیه در منطقۀ قفقاز جنوبی چگونه است؟ اینک، روسیه قدرت مرکزی این منطقه برآورد می‌شود و در هر سه کشور یادشده نفوذ چشمگیری دارد. اما در نگرش ژنوژئوپلیتیک، به‌نظر می‌رسد که روسیه در قفقاز جنوبی هژمونی ندارد. حضور این کشور در قفقاز جنوبی، به‌دلیل رقابت با قدرت‌های غربی و پیگیری سیاست اوراسیاگرایانه است. به همین منظور، احتمال می‌رود حضور سخت‌افزاری روسیه در سه کشور ارمنستان، جمهوری آذربایجان و گرجستان با چالش‌‌هایی روبه‌رو شود. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| روسیه؛ ژنوژئوپلیتیک؛ سیاست خارجی؛ قفقاز جنوبی؛ هژمونی | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Analysis of Russian Foreign Policy in the South Caucasus based on Gene-geopolitics | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Elaheh Koolaee1؛ Meysam Hadipoor2 | ||
| 1Professor of Regional Studies, University of Tehran | ||
| 2Ph.D. Student of Political Geography, Tarbiat Modares University | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Gene-geopolitics or genetically geopolitics is one of the new issues in critical geopolitics. According to this issue, the hegemony of a state on a regional and trans-regional scale must impart cultural and historical homogeneity. Talking about hegemony is not possible without homogeneity and it is just being referenced to hard power, intimidation, and military potentialities. South Caucasia region includes three states of Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia. The position of communication of this region with the surrounding environment throughout history has shown that the pipelines for transferring energy resources are a determining factor in its special geopolitical and geo-economics conditions. The South Caucasus which is located in southwestern Russia is one of Russia’s peripheral or the so-called “near-Abroad” environments. The region has an important role in the Eurasianism policy of Russia and Moscow has tried to prevent the dominion effect of Ukraine developments. This paper by adopting the descriptive-analytical method tries to answer this question that what is the hegemonic status of Russia concerning the significance of south Caucasia in its foreign policy? For now, Russia is considered a central power in the region and has gained considerable influence into the three states of south Caucasia. In gene-geopolitical attitude, it seems that Russia hasn’t irremovable hegemony in south Caucasia and its semi-hegemony is connected to rivalry space of Western states and Eurasianism. As a whole, Russia’s hard power in Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia will be challenged in the future through reasonable assumptions. Problem: after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia applied the policy of non-interference in its external environment for about a decade. From the time when Vladimir Putin seized power, Russia’s geopolitical codes were strengthened and revived again in continuation of the Soviet Union foreign policy. The growing importance of the Caspian Sea, its geo-economics issues, the investment, and the unprecedented presence of western powers in the newly independent states, have convinced Russian authorities to begin their presence in the external environment. Therefore, Russian foreign policy was empowered based on Eurasianism and the country tried using both hard and software tools to influence its peripheral states. The Caucasus is one of Russia’s peripheral environments or the so-called “near-abroad”. Russia has sought intervention in this region, directly and indirectly, to solidify its influence in its rivalry with the West, particularly with those of the US policies. The growing need of the countries in this region for energy extraction and finding a suitable market, has provided suitable space for Russia’s presence. However, attractive investments by Russia’s rivals, such as the European Union and the United States as well as Russia’s dependence on the sale of its energy resources, are among challenges that have made its foreign policy vulnerable in the South Caucasus. On the other hand, the lack of iconographic and spiritual elements in the Soviet Union seems to be one of the main reasons for its dissolution. Accordingly, the Soviet Union failed to establish a national identity among its members. The lack of a common history, myth, and culture that are components of gene-geopolitics paved the way for its dissolution. Nowadays, in the critical geopolitical approach, the iconographic elements that play a spiritual and cultural role in building societies have regained importance. These elements act like cement on the side of the material and connect the components firmly and durable to each other. Thus, in some respects, the lack of iconographic elements in Russian foreign policy is one of the challenges that has prevented its deep penetration into its surroundings. The authors of this article try to examine Russia’s foreign policy in the South Caucasus from a gene-geopolitical point of view qualitatively based on description and analysis. This region is one of Russia’s buffer zones in competition with the West. According to the mentioned point, there is a strong hardware and software presence in these three countries. How successful Russia’s foreign policy has been in the South Caucasus is a question that will be examined from a gene-geopolitical point of view. Question: what is Russia’s foreign policy in the South Caucasus from a gene-geopolitical point of view? Hypothesis: it seems that Russia in the South Caucasus has no hegemony. Therefore, its presence in the South Caucasus is due to the competition with Western powers and the pursuing policies of Eurasianism. Thus, Russia’s hardware presence in Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia is likely to be challenging. Methodology: in this article, the authors have studied the issue and hypothesis of the article with a qualitative method based on description and analysis. Conclusion: Moscow’s policy in the Caucasus energy sector has focused on the Republic of Azerbaijan, in the military fields the focus is on Armenia and in controlling the West’s behavior in the region it has focused on strategic competition in Georgia. Russia’s foreign policy, despite its multiple layers and constant flexibility, has no hegemonic burden. It is due to the history, culture, and ideologies of the Caucasus region. Russia has always tried to suppress them by maintaining its superior military rite. Russia's geoeconomic policies in the region also face challenges. Because Russia’s economy relies on oil and gas, it is not an attractive customer for regional oil sellers. Russia’s military rhetoric seeks to hardware domination in the South Caucasus. Due to the structural constraints, all three countries in the region are pursuing an alignment in policy with Russia. Armenia relies militarily on Moscow due to its territorial enmity with the republic of Azerbaijan. Besides, Tbilisi’s policies in recent years have shown this country’s serious desire to join NATO. The Republic of Azerbaijan, with its nationalist policies, is a reliable partner for Turkey, Israel, and the United States. That is why Baku’s Western policy is more intense, but Russia has not given up on its energy presence. Russia’s military support for Armenia in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has complicated Russian-Azeri relations. Azerbaijan’s energy policy in recent years has shown that the presence of the European Union to invest in Azerbaijan’s energy sector has been a challenge to Russia’s policy in Baku. Georgia as an example of a complex hardware implementation of Russia’s foreign policy like Ukraine has experienced growing instability. Historical deterioration in Russia-Georgia relations, along with growing US efforts to narrow Russia’s geopolitical depth in the South Caucasus, has exacerbated Moscow’s challenge in Georgia. So the lack of gene-geopolitical structures in Russia has made it difficult for the country to operate in the South Caucasus. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Foreign Policy, Gene-geopolitics, Hegemony, Russia, South Caucasia | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Abolhassan Shirazi, Habibollah (2006), Commonwealth Countries, Tehran: Abrar-e Moaser [in Persian]. Bekiarova, Natalia (2019), “South Caucasus as a Region of Strategic Importance”, Journal of Advances in Social Sciences, Vol. 5, No. 14, pp. 1016-1025. Diesen, G. (2020), “The Geo-economics of Russia’s Greater Eurasia Initiative”, Journal of Asian Politics and Policy, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 566-585. Dolman, E. (2005), Astropolitik-Classical Geopolitics in the Space Age (Strategy and History Series), Taylor and Francis e-Library. Eurasian Geopolitics (2014), Available at: https://eurasiangeopolitics.files. wordpress.com/2014/08/russia-nc-north-caucasus-physical.png, (Accessed on: 1/5/2016). Flint, C. (2004), The Geography of War and Peace: from Death Camps to Diplomats, Oxford University Press Flint, C. and P. J. Taylor (2007), Political Geography: World-economy, Nation-state and Locality, London: Pearson/Prentice Hall. Gadimova-Akbulut, Nazrin (2020), “Common Identity as the Missing Element in the Construction of Regionalism in the South Caucasus”, Journal of Caucasian Studies, Vol. 5, No. 10, pp. 51-72. Gallagher, Carolyn and Others (2017), Key Concepts in Political Geography, Translated by Mohammad Hassan Nami and Ali Mohammadpour, Tehran: Zeitoon-e Sabz [in Persian]. Gvelesiani, Lile and Holger Mölder (2018), “Maintaining the Security Dilemma in the South Caucasus Russia’s Geostrategic Interests in Georgia”, Estonian Journal of Military Studies, Vol. 2, No. 7, pp. 137–157. Hatefi, Maryam (2012), The Role of Ethnic Tendencies and National Identity in the Russia-Georgia Conflict, Tehran: Dad [in Persian]. Kateb, Abolfazl, and Syrous Ahmadi (2014), “Expounding the Theory of Iconography in the Separation of Iranian Territories in 19th Century”, National Studies, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 4-24 [in Persian]. Koolaee, Elaheh (2012) (a), Politics and Government in Central Eurasia, Tehran: Samt [in Persian]. Koolaee, Elaheh (2012) (b), Myths of the Colored Revolutions, Tehran: Mizan [in Persian]. Korosteleva, E. and Z. Paikin (2020), “Russia between East and West and the Future of Eurasian Order”, International Politics, Vol. 44, No. 2, pp. 1-13. Kreindler, I. (2020), “The Changing Status of Russian in the Soviet Union”, International Journal of the Sociology of Language, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 7-39. Markedonov, Sergey M. and Maxim A. Suchkov (2020), “Russia and the United States in the Caucasus: Cooperation and Competition, Caucasus Survey, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 1-18 (doi:10.1080/23761199.2020.1732101). Mojtahedzadeh, Pirouz (2014), Political Geography and Geographical Politics, Tehran: Samt [in Persian]. Mottaqi, Afshin (2015), “Analysis of the Geopolitical Formation of Convergence in the Central Asia and Caucasia”, Central Eurasia Studies, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 63-84 [in Persian]. Okur, M. A. (2014), “Classical Texts of the Geopolitics and the Heart of Eurasia”, Journal of Turkish World Studies, Vol. XIV, No. 2, pp. 73-104. Painter, J. and A. Jeffrey (2009), “Geopolitics and Anti-geopolitics”, in: Joe Painter and Alex Jeffrey, Political Geography: an Introduction to Space and Power, Second Edition, Los Angeles: Sage. Privalko, I. (2020), “Gender Differences in Russia’s Job Mobility and its Rewards”, Economics of Transition and Institutional Change, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 25-35. Rabiee, H. and M. Gharehbeygi (2015), “Hegemony of Iran in the Caspian-Central Asia Region from the Perspective of Geopolitical Realities”, United States of America Research Journal (USARJ), Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 26-38. Russian Federation (2009), Tehran: Institute for Political and International Studies [in Persian]. Socor, V. (2007), ‘Summit Takes Stock of GUAMs Projects, Institutional Development”, Eurasia Daily Monitor, The Jamestown Foundation, Vol. 4, No. 120, pp. 20-31. Sushentsov, Andrey and Nikita Neklyudov (2020), “The Caucasus in Russian Foreign Policy Strategy”, Caucasus Survey, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 1-6 (doi: 10.1080/23761199.2020.1759888). Vahedi, Elias (2004), Strategic Estimation of Azerbaijan, Vol. 1, Tehran: Abrar-e Moaser [in Persian]. Volkhonskiy, M. A. (2018), “Abolition of the Governorship in the Caucasus in 1881–1882”, Russian History, No. 3, pp. 171–189. Wahlberg, Eric (2014), Postmodern Imperialism: Geopolitics and the Great Games, Translated by Afshin Mottaqi and Mosayeb Gharehbeygi, Tehran: Armed Forces Geographical Organization [in Persian]. Weeks, T. R. (2020), “Russification: Word and Practice 1863–2019”, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 148, No. 4, pp. 471-489. Yahyapour, M. S. and M. Gharehbeygi (2016), “Hegemonic Challenges of Iran and Russia in the Transcaucasia Region”, Journal of Politics and Law, Vol. 9, No. 5, pp. 1-17. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 1,264 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 745 |
||