scholarly journals «Red Threat» in the estimates of the USA press in 1939

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 223-226
Author(s):  
Sergey Olegovich Buranok

The following paper deals with the research of the place and value of Russias foreign policy and its reflection in the USA public opinion. The study of information campaign around USSRs foreign policy has its specifics and value: first, it gives a chance to establish new, unknown facts; secondly, to determine the level of knowledge of another (in this case, American) society about the Soviet foreign policy; thirdly, to understand what place information about Soviet foreign policy took in the USA in the system of the USSR image creation, the image of the Soviet revolution. This paper uses materials of the USA press about USSRs foreign policy in 1939. Besides, the author analyzes the image of the Soviet foreign policy in the American society. The information campaign around USSRs foreign policy could report to the world about the Soviet foreign policy achievements as well as promote preparation (in the information plan) to the following large project - the image of the Soviet ally. Articles, reports, notes on USSRs foreign policy of 1939 helped to change the attitude towards Russia / the USSR in the USA and helped to correct the image of the USSR in the world.

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 171-179
Author(s):  
Sergey Olegovich Buranok

The following paper deals with the research of the place and value of Russia electrification plan and its reflection in Great Britain and the USA public opinion. The study of information campaign around Russia electrification plan has its specifics and value: first, it gives a chance to establish new, unknown facts; secondly, to determine the level of knowledge of Another (in this case, American) society about the Soviet power; thirdly, to understand what place information about Russia electrification plan took in the USA and Great Britain in the system of the USSR image creation, the image of the Soviet power revolution. This paper uses materials of the USA and Great Britain press about Russia electrification plan. Besides, the author analyzes the image of the Soviet power in the American and British society. The information campaign around Russia electrification plan could report to the world about the Soviet economy achievements as well as promote preparation (in the information plan) to the following large project - industrialization. Articles, reports, notes on Russia electrification plan helped to change the attitude towards Russia / the USSR in the USA and Great Britain and helped to correct the image of the USSR in the world.


Author(s):  
Przemysław Potocki

The article is based on an analysis of certain aspects of how the public opinion of selected nations in years 2001–2016 perceived the American foreign policy and the images of two Presidents of the United States (George W. Bush, Barack Obama). In order to achieve these research goals some polling indicators were constructed. They are linked with empirical assessments related to the foreign policy of the U.S. and the political activity of two Presidents of the United States of America which are constructed by nations in three segments of the world system. Results of the analysis confirmed the research hypotheses. The position of a given nation in the structure of the world system influenced the dynamics of perception and the directions of empirical assessments (positive/negative) of that nation’s public opinion about the USA.


Author(s):  
Daniel Deudney

The end of the Cold War left the USA as uncontested hegemon and shaper of the globalization and international order. Yet the international order has been unintentionally but repeatedly shaken by American interventionism and affronts to both allies and rivals. This is particularly the case in the Middle East as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as the nuclear negotiations with Iran show. Therefore, the once unquestioned authority and power of the USA have been challenged at home as well as abroad. By bringing disorder rather than order to the world, US behavior in these conflicts has also caused domestic exhaustion and division. This, in turn, has led to a more restrained and as of late isolationist foreign policy from the USA, leaving the role as shaper of the international order increasingly to others.


2015 ◽  
Vol 59 (12) ◽  
pp. 30-40
Author(s):  
V. Vasil'ev

The article investigates approaches taken by major political parties and civil society in the FRG toward the Transatlantic partnership. It reveals the tendencies of the prospective promotion of Berlin’s cooperation with Washington; the article also gives a forecast of further interaction between the EU and the USA, indicates the direction of discourse regarding the future Russia–Germany relations model in the context of the Ukrainian crisis and in reference to the increased transatlantic solidarity. Disputes in German socio-political circles on the issue of the FRG’s policy toward the U.S. are emerging all the time, but they have to be considered within a concrete historical and political context. Being of primary significance for all German chancellors, the Trans-Atlantic factor has been shaping itself in a controversial way as to the nation’s public opinion. This has been confirmed by many opinion polls, including the survey on the signing of the EU–U.S. Agreement on the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. Chancellor A. Merkel is playing an important role: she is either ascribed full compliancy with Washington, or is being tentatively shown as a consistent government figure in advancing and upholding of Germany's and the EU's interests. A. Merkel has implemented her peace-seeking drive in undoing the Ukrainian tangle by setting up the “Normandy format” involving the leaders of Germany, France, Russia and Ukraine while having cleared it through with the U.S. President B. Obama well in advance. Despite the increasing criticism of Washington’s policy among some part of Germans, for the majority of German voters, the USA remains a country of implementable hopes, the only power in the world possessing a high education level and the most advanced technologies. Americans, for their part, are confident of the important role that Berlin plays in world politics, particularly in what concerns the maintenance of unity within the EU. Berlin aims at further constructive interaction with the USA in the frame of NATO as well as within other Trans-Atlantic formats. Notwithstanding the steady tendency toward increasing of the Washington policy’s critical perception degree in German society, officially Berlin continues as Washington’s true ally, partner and friend. There is every reason to believe that after the 2017 Bundestag elections, the new (the former) Chancellor will have to face a modernized Trans-Atlantic partnership philosophy, with a paradigm also devised in the spirit of the bloc discipline and commitments to allies. The main concern for Berlin is not to lose its sovereign right of decision-making, including the one that deals with problems of European security and relations with Moscow. Regrettably, Germany is not putting forward any innovative ideas on aligning a new architecture of European security with Russia’s participation. Meanwhile, German scholars and experts are trying to work out a tentative algorithm of a gradual return to the West’s full-fledged dialogue with Russia, which, unfortunately, is qualified as an opponent by many politicians. Predictably, the Crimea issue will remain a long-lasting political irritant in relations between Russia and Germany. Although not every aspect of Berlin’s activation in its foreign policy finds support of the German public, and the outburst of anti-American feeling is obvious, experts believe that the government of the FRG is “merely taking stock of these phenomena and ignores them”. Evident is the gap between the government's line and the feeling of the German parties’ basis – the public. It is noteworthy that the FRG has not yet adopted the Law on Holding General Federal Referendums on key issues of the domestic and foreign policy. There is every indication to assume that the real causes of abandoning the nationwide referendums are the reluctance of the German ruling bureaucracy and even its apprehensions of the negative voting returns on sensitive problems, – such as basic documents and decisions of the EU, the export of German arms, relations with the U.S., etc. The harmony between Berlin’s "Realpolitik" and German public opinion is not yet discernible within the system of Trans-Atlantic axes.


Author(s):  
Vladimir Kolossov

The author is Head of the Centre of Geopolitical Studies at the Institute of Geography of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow,Professor at the University of Toulouse - Le Mirail (France) and Chair of the International Geographical Union Commission on Political Geography. He is the author of 12 books and has published in Political Geography, GeoJournal, Geopolitics, Eurasian Geography and Economy (formerly Post-Soviet Geography and Economy,) and other international and national journals. His most recent books include La Russie (la construction de l'identité nationale) in co-authorship with Denis Eckert (Paris, Flammarion, 1999); Geopolitics and Political Geography, in co-authorship with N. Mironenko (Moscow, Aspekt-Press, 2001, in Russian); and editor, The World in the Eyes of Russian Citizens: Public Opinion and Foreign Policy (Moscow, FOM, 2002, in Russian). 


The report “Russia and the World: 2021. Annual Forecast: Economy and Foreign Policy” continues the series of yearly publications of the Primakov National Research Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO) and Foundation for Prospective Studies and Initiatives. It consists of two parts: “Economy” and “Foreign Policy”. Part I focuses upon Russian foreign trade-economic relations and analysis and forecast of the world (Russia, Europe, the USA, Japan, India) economic trends in 2020-2021, including international financial markets and main Russian export markets. The report is based on the decades long IMEMO experience in forecast research. Part II presents the forecast of international relations for 2021, it analyzes main challenges for Russia and options to respond them.


Author(s):  
O. Bogaevskaya ◽  
A. Borisova ◽  
A. Davydov ◽  
E. Desiatsky ◽  
S. Dmitriev ◽  
...  

The article analyzes major trends in domestic, social, economic, trade and foreign policy of the USA in 2020. The last year of Donald Trump’s presidency became the most traumatic and unpredictable for the country. The COVID-19 pandemic dominated every process in the political, social and economic life of the American society and government. At the same time, it accentuated the main trends of the Trump foreign policy. Trump became the first president to be impeached twice, the 13th president who after being nominated by his party was not reelected by the society, the first president trying to fight both unknown epidemic and economic crisis during his reelection year, the first president who chose not to come to the inauguration of his successor, the first who made decisive steps to break with American-China interdependence and the first who openly declared that he put American interests above those of the other countries, even the allies. His presidency changed the USA deeply and the last year was the turning point in this transformation. He was the most polarized president and he left behind a deeply divided country. Trump spent his last year in the White House battling with the pandemic and fighting for power, and it highlighted how limited the capabilities of the American presidency are in the polarized system where political compromise between the parties is no longer possible. At the same time this last year pointed out a critical importance of a leader’s personality for politics in all spheres. In the time of deep polarization, foreign policy became the only sphere of possible compromise for the parties. Both Democrats and Republicans supported the economic instruments sponsored by Trump of ensuring American leadership in time of pandemic, despite his arrogant style so much criticized by the opposition. After four years of Trump’s presidency the policy of sanctions is considered an effective and long-lasting instrument to control the competitors and enhance the American influence. At the same time while the trend of confrontation became dominant during the Trump’s presidency and his policy of economic nationalism could have more distant and strategic consequences, the confrontation with key actors such as China demonstrated the limits of American power to influence and to control unilaterally both the global economic and political processes and the behavior of different actors. This article is a result of a collective multi-aspect research of transformations taking place in the US on a real time basis. The analysis is built methodologically on the systemic approach to studying American political, social and economic trends, both domestically and on international level.


Author(s):  
D. KONG

Today, the world is in the midst of a tremendous change. The concept of the Great Eurasian Partnership is an attempt by Russia to go beyond the framework of traditional foreign policy thinking focused on the USA and the West, the result of a breakthrough, as well as a diplomatic direction, a strategy of economic development in the new conditions. Connecting the concept with the initiative of international cooperation One Belt and One Road is one of the key factors for its implementation.


Author(s):  
Simon Miles

This chapter covers Ronald Reagan's first meeting with Mikhail Gorbache in Geneva in November 1985, exploring the internal and external roots of the nascent new thinking in Soviet foreign-policy and its impact on East–West relations. It recounts how superpower relations over a five-year period became messy and contradictory as Moscow and Washington exchanged harsh words and engaged in more dialogue than is commonly thought. It also mentions how the process of ending the Cold War had begun as US policymakers regained confidence in their place in the world and their Soviet counterparts took drastic measures to deal with a deteriorating situation. The chapter refers to policymakers in Washington and Moscow who struggled with the dualities of the Cold War. It describes that the policymakers witnessed a strong and rising United States and a Soviet Union that was on a grim downward trajectory.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document