Soviet Scholars and Soviet Foreign Policy: A Case Study in Soviet Policy towards India. By Richard B. Remnek. (Durham, N.C.: Carolina Academic Press, 1975. Pp. xiv + 343. $11.00.)

1978 ◽  
Vol 72 (3) ◽  
pp. 1182-1182
Author(s):  
Richard L. Siegel
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Academic Press ◽  
Soviet Policy ◽  
Soviet Foreign Policy

Soviet Scholars and Soviet Foreign Policy. A Case Study in Soviet Policy Towards India.

1976 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 739
Author(s):  
Marshall Windmiller ◽  
Richard B. Remnek ◽  
W. W. Kulski
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Soviet Policy ◽  
Soviet Foreign Policy

Soviet Scholars and Soviet Foreign Policy: A Case Study in Soviet Policy toward India

1979 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 253
Author(s):  
Robert H. Donaldson ◽  
Richard B. Remnek
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Soviet Policy ◽  
Soviet Foreign Policy

Soviet Foreign Policy Factionalism Under Stalin?: A Case Study of the Inevitability of War Controversy

1976 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-107
Author(s):  
Paul Marantz
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Harsh Discipline ◽  
Capitalist System ◽  
Strict Adherence ◽  
Policy Debates ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Soviet Foreign Policy ◽  
Important Evidence

AbstractThere has been a great deal of controversy among Western scholars concerning the direction of Soviet foreign policy in the final years and months of Stalin's rule.1 One of the crucial questions at issue is whether or not there were significant divisions of opinion within the Politburo over foreign policy matters. This article attempts to explore this particular question through an examination of a doctrinal controversy that surfaced during Stalin's last years. In one of his most famous works, Imperialism: The Highest State of Capitalism, Lenin argued that war was an inevitable concomitant of the capitalist system. He contended that the unending struggle for markets meant that periodic wars among the capitalist powers were unavoidable and inevitable.2 Stalin adhered to this view throughout his long reign, and it was not until three years after Stalin's death, in Khruschchev's speech to the Twentieth Party Congress, that it was finally revised. Yet despite Stalin's strict adherence to the Leninist analysis of imperialism, and despite the harsh discipline that characterized his rule, there is evidence that the official interpretation was being publicly questioned even while Stalin was still alive. Given the nature of esoteric communication in the Soviet Union,and the close connection between doctrinal and policy debates, an examination of the controversy concerning the inevitability of war can provide important evidence having a direct bearing upon our understanding of this period.3

The “Lessons” of Vietnam and Soviet Foreign Policy

1981 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
William Zimmerman ◽  
Robert Axelrod
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Policy Dialogue ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Soviet Policy ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Soviet Foreign Policy ◽  
The Media ◽  
The Third World ◽  
Individual Choices

This study systematically identifies the Soviet lessons of Vietnam as presented in eleven Soviet newspapers (specialized and regional as well as the central papers) and eight journals. Altogether, 1,585 citations were coded, representing more than 70 different lessons. A predominant finding is that the most common lessons the Soviet Union learned from Vietnam differed from their American counterparts: the Soviet lessons would not have warned the leadership about the dangers of military intervention in Afghanistan. A left/right scale was constructed, based on such issue clusters as why the communists won in Vietnam, the nature of imperialism, and the implications of Soviet policy in the Third World. Substantial variation was found among the media examined, many of which are linked to specific Soviet institutions. The implication is that Soviet foreign policy is contingent upon individual choices, institutional interplay, and changing contexts. This, in turn, suggests that Western policy makers should not lose sight of their capacity to influence the Soviet policy dialogue, and hence Soviet policy choices.

New Directions in Soviet Policy towards Latin America

1989 ◽  
Vol 21 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 1-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rodolfo Cerdas Cruz
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Latin America ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Latin American ◽  
Social Changes ◽  
Soviet Policy ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
New Directions ◽  
Soviet Foreign Policy ◽  
Internal Relations

This study explores some of the changes currently taking place in the USSR and the possible impact of changing Soviet foreign policy on Latin America. The article begins with an analysis of the possible effects of the attempts to separate Party and State on foreign policy and on the interpretation and observance of the so-called internationalist obligations of the Soviet Union towards Latin America. It goes on to investigate the possible impact of perestroika on the internal relations of COMECON countries and any weakening in the commitment of its members to political and social changes in the Latin American republics. These changes are looked at particularly, though not uniquely, with reference to Cuba and Nicaragua. Some predictions are also made as to the possible future moves the USSR might make to strengthen and improve its relations with the largest countries in the region such as Brazil and Argentina.

New Thinking and Soviet Policy Towards South Africa

1990 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 545-572 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel R. Kempton
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Southern Africa ◽  
Soviet Policy ◽  
Soviet Foreign Policy ◽  
New Thinking ◽  
Marked Decline ◽  
National Reconciliation

During the last few years, Mikhail Gorbachev's new thinking has stimulated a number of dramatic and largely unexpected shifts in Soviet foreign policy. In Southern Africa, its effects have been both immediate and quite profound. The two most publicised changes have been Moscow's growing support for negotiations as a method of resolving the region's conflicts, and the related reduction of its commitments to the régimes in Angola and Mozambique. In fact, there is evidence that the Kremlin has been putting pressure on both its allies to engage in a process of ‘national reconciliation’ with the armed movements trying to overthrow them. At the rhetorical level, at least, there has also been a marked decline in Moscow's enthusiasm for revolutionary upheavals in Southern Africa.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document