OBSERVARE

Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 1 (May-October 2022)

THE SECURITY DILEMMA IN RUSSIA’S NEW NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY:

BETWEEN MILITARISM AND BEING A GEOGRAPHICAL PIVOT

SANDRA FERNANDES

sfernandes@eeg.uminho.pt

Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science of University of Minho (Portugal) and Director

of the Master Degree in International Relations. Ph.D. in Political Science and International

Relations from Sciences Po. Awarded the Jacques Delors Prize 2005 for research on the European

Union and Russia. Collaboration with the Portuguese Embassy in Russia. She was nominated by

the Minister of Foreign Affairs to be part of the jury for access to the diplomatic career;

responsible for the creation and coordination of the Diplomatic Career Access Course,

UminhoExec and member of the Board of the Portuguese Political Science Association (APCP).

She was Guest Lecturer within the scope of postgraduate courses in foreign universities. She was

Guest Researcher at the Centre for European Policy Studies

MARCO CRUZ

cruz.maf@ium.pt

Lieutenant Colonel of the National Republican Guard (Portugal), Professor in Armed Crises and

Conflicts at the Military University Institute, teaching Geopolitics, International Relations and

Security Studies. He participated in GNR missions in Iraq, East Timor and Bosnia and

Herzegovina (European Union-EUFOR). He is the Coordinator of the Nucleus of European Military

Studies at the Research and Development Centre of the IUM, and an expert in internal security

and criminal phenomena. Master’s degree in law and Security and Bachelor and master’s degree

in military sciences. Postgraduate diploma in Political Science and International Relations and is a

Ph.D. student in International Relations in the specialty of political studies. He is a researcher at

the Research and Development Centre of IUM, and author and co-author of several publications

in the areas of Geopolitics and Security Studies.

Abstract

The article analyses the new Russian Security Strategy as a formulation of Russia's “security

dilemma”, both in terms of interpretation and response (Booth and Wheeler 2007). Very

focused on the transformation of the world order, resulting from changes in the International

System, within which the powers seek to strengthen their positions in the global structure,

the strategy increasingly foresees the use of the military instrument as a way of guaranteeing

and imposing national interests, which are reflected in different domains and regional areas.

Exploring the strategic relations with China, in economic and political terms, Russia also seeks

to strengthen its status as a global power, through the expansion of geographic space and

areas of intervention. In its interpretation of the so-called “modern world”, very marked by

the rivalry between the US and China, it seeks to assume itself as the geographical pivot of

that same relationship. The National Security Strategy therefore is a roadmap for Russia's

ambitions, assessing the motives, intentions and capabilities of the "others" and identifying

the "rational" and "legitimate" ways of responding to its "security dilemma". Whereas it is

possible to confirm that the invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022 materialized the

elements present in the strategy, the effects do not seem to coincide with the objectives

sought by Moscow.

Keywords

Russia; Security Strategy; security dilemma; geographical pivot; militarism

How to cite this article

Fernandes, Sandra; Cruz, Marco (2022). The security dilemma in Russia’s new national

security strategy: between militarism and being a geographical pivot. In Janus.net, e-journal

of international relations. Vol13, Nº. 1, May-October 2022. Consulted [online] on the date of

the last visit, https://doi.org/10.26619/1647-7251.13.1.1

Article received on January 11, 2022 and accepted for publication on April 1, 2022

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 1 (May-October 2022), pp. 1-18

The security dilemma in Russia’s new national security strategy:

between militarism and being a geographical pivot

Sandra Fernandes, Marco Cruz

THE SECURITY DILEMMA IN RUSSIA’S NEW NATIONAL SECURITY

STRATEGY: BETWEEN MILITARISM AND BEING

A GEOGRAPHICAL PIVOT

SANDRA FERNANDES

MARCO CRUZ

Introduction

In the 21st century, in contrast to the 1990s, Russia embarked on a path of international

(re)ascension, under the leadership of Vladimir Putin. The Russian-Georgian war of 2008

and the annexation of Crimea in 2014 marked a turning point in Moscow's modus

operandi in asserting its interests. These include not only areas of direct strategic interest

in its “near abroad”

, but also in more distant regions, such as the African continent and

South and Central America (Gurganus, 2018).

Since the implosion of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia's foreign and security policy has

evolved according to its relationship with the West and with the main Western powers.

During the Cold War, this relationship was one of strategic rivalry, through the search

and dispute of influence space, both in political and military terms (Gaddis, 2007).

Moscow's intention to bring it closer to Western states and organizations even included

the possibility of its integration into the Atlantic Alliance itself (Thorun, 2009). Initial

support for the war on terror after the 9/11 attacks also illustrates this approach (Cardier,

2015: 160). After the phase of relative convergence, President Putin’s leadership broke

with this cooperative course, resurrecting the perception that it is necessary to reverse

the position of weakness of the Russian nation, “having lost Eastern Europe, the USSR

lost its most important defence zone and suffered a huge geopolitical blow” (Dugin, 2016:

70).

Article translated by Carolina Peralta.

The term “near abroad” appeared for the first time in 1992, being considered a geopolitical “label” among

Russian politicians in the context of the dissolution of the Soviet Union. It refers to the near abroad, that

is, to the former Soviet republics, which have since become independent sovereign countries. The term

recognizes the new independent status, but despite this, it keeps countries under Russian influence, given

that these countries continue to belong to the former Soviet family (Toal, 2017: 3).

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 1 (May-October 2022), pp. 1-18

The security dilemma in Russia’s new national security strategy:

between militarism and being a geographical pivot

Sandra Fernandes, Marco Cruz

Putin made this perception explicit in key speeches in 2005 and 2007, identifying the

implosion of the Soviet Union as the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century, the

aggressiveness of the enlargement policies of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization)

and the European Union (EU) to post-Soviet states, and the criticism of the hegemony of

the United States (US) in an international order that is multilateral (Putin, 2005; 2007).

The role of Russian leadership has been crucial for relations with Western powers, with

two distinct type-views: one that places Russia as a European power, that is, closer to

Western normative frameworks; and another that defends Russia’s centrality in Central

Asia, occupying the “heart” of the Heartland (Mackinder 1943: 595-605) and, in this way,

seeking Russian autonomy in relation to Western actors, including strengthening

partnerships with Asian countries (Krickovic & Pellicciari, 2021: 89-90).

The change in Russia’s path was based on economic prosperity and materialized mainly

in the Russian-Georgian war of 2008, and in the so-called colour revolutions that led to

the overthrow of rulers in Georgia and Ukraine, closer to the Kremlin (Nygren, 2008: 30;

Sakwa, 2015: 65). The previous leaderships of the Ukrainian and Georgian governments

were replaced by politicians whose ambition was to approach and eventually be part of

Euro-Atlantic institutions, aiming to benefit from the economic support and development

of the EU and the security “umbrella” of NATO. This geopolitical framework has changed

relations between Russia, the EU and NATO (Casier, 2016: 18-19; Mendras, 2015: 85).

From Moscow's point of view, as during the Cold War period, Western countries sought

to subjugate Russia, removing vital spaces of influence from it, not only encircling it

(Crowley, 2018), but removing the buffer zone between Russia and the West (Haas,

2010: 3).

This article aims to analyse the new Russia’s National Security Strategy (RNSS) of July

2021 (RF, 2021). This document is the main strategic document of the State, to which

the military doctrine and the concept of its foreign policy are subordinated. As a result of

the changes it announces within the international system, the new strategy contrasts

with the previous version published in 2015 (RF, 2015) and identifies the main trends

and opportunities for Russia in the “modern world”. Based on the concept of “security

dilemma sensitivity” formulated by Booth and Wheeler (2007)

, we argue that the

document under analysis informs about the role of fear in Russian attitudes and

behaviours. Thus, our main objective is to identify how Moscow responded to its

“interpretation dilemma” by defining what the motives, intentions and capacities of

others are.

Although in rhetorical terms, the new RNSS also indicates how Russia solved its “response

dilemma” by listing the rational ways to respond to its security dilemma. The “special

operation” that the Kremlin launched on Ukraine on 24 February 2022, condemned as a

war of aggression by the West, embodies the Russian response to its interpretation of

the security dilemma.

The authors define the concept as follows: “an actor's intention and capacity to perceive the motives behind,

and to show responsiveness towards, the potential complexity of the military intentions of others. In

particular, it refers to the ability to understand the role that fear might play in their attitudes and behaviour,

including, crucially, the role that one's own actions may play in provoking that fear” (Booth and Wheeler:

7).

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 1 (May-October 2022), pp. 1-18

The security dilemma in Russia’s new national security strategy:

between militarism and being a geographical pivot

Sandra Fernandes, Marco Cruz

Based on the recent changes that the Kremlin has made in its external relations, the

article thus identifies the extent to which these dimensions are translated into the new

RNSS. Although the document unequivocally expresses the deterioration of relations

between Russia and the “Western countries”, our analysis seeks to understand to what

extent and in what way the changes established in the RNSS include elements of Russian

geopolitical thought (Fernandes and Ageeva, 2021) and ruptures confirmed by the

current war in Ukraine. These elements include a move away from European cooperation

options; a challenge to Western leadership in the global order in the sense that there are

multiple centres of power (multipolarity); the search for partnerships in Asia and a new

Russian foreign policy identity on a Eurasian scale.

Using qualitative methodology based on the content analysis of the RNSS, we analysed,

firstly, how the “West” is approached in that same document, in terms of actors and

issues, in order to highlight the dynamics of cooperation and of conflict that Moscow

reveals. Secondly, to question Russia's ambition to be a Eurasian actor, we identified

elements of global ambition compared to elements of a regional predisposition. Finally,

still in order to assess the articulation of Russian Eurasianism in the RNSS, we assessed

Moscow’s objective of being a “geographical pivot” in a world that Russia perceives as

not being centred in the West but composed of several centres of power.

1. The West as “Other”: Defending Russian Interests and Culture

The RNSS identifies the US and its main western allies as the main threat to Russia's

interests, underlining NATO's (and EU's) enlargement policies as the main element of

interference in its “near abroad”. It is also in the West that the main threats “to internal

political unity and stability” and to its values and principles originate (RF, 2021: 4). In

addition to the emphasis given to climate issues, the economy and technology, the new

strategy seeks to challenge the hegemonic order dominated by Western countries,

demanding a more relevant role for Russia, which is in line with its international weight

in military, geographical, technological and legal terms, namely its status as a permanent

member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).

As far as NATO is concerned, the organization and its allies remain a military threat to

the Russian Federation and its main partners, in particular those that are part of the

Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). In this context, the construction of nearby

military bases are highlighted as threats to Russian sovereignty, referring to the military

exercises and the installation of nuclear weapons “against the Russian Federation” carried

out (RF, 2021: 12).

In addition to pointing to the West, albeit indirectly, as being behind the computer attacks

that Russia has been experiencing, in the view of the new strategy, some actors threaten

Russian values - spiritual, moral, historical and cultural. The States are joined by

transnational companies, non-governmental actors, religious entities and extremist and

terrorist organizations. As in other moments in its history, the so-called westernization

of Russian culture is seen as a threat to its sovereignty, as it seeks to “falsify Russia and

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 1 (May-October 2022), pp. 1-18

The security dilemma in Russia’s new national security strategy:

between militarism and being a geographical pivot

Sandra Fernandes, Marco Cruz

its world history, distort historical truth and memory”

, thus inciting interethnic and

interreligious group conflicts that weaken the State itself.

In order to “protect” Russian values and spirit from external interference, fourteen

actions are identified, with emphasis on the information and research domain, where the

promotion of state information programmes and research centres that carry out the

scientific dissemination of documents related to Russia and its history, in the “educational

space” (physical and virtual) is defended (RF, 2021: 36-38). In religious and cultural

terms, the fostering of projects in partnership with different entities, in particular with

the (Orthodox) church, inside and outside Russian territory, is advocated. The most

relevant aspect of the activities, however, comes from point 7, which emphasizes the

“reinforcement of the cultural sovereignty of the Russian Federation and the preservation

of the unity of its cultural space (RF, 2021: 36).

This “defence” of Russian culture makes it possible to expand the space of Russian

intervention far beyond its physical borders. Russian-speaking communities and Russian

entities that carry out activities abroad are one of the bases of power. In addition to the

countries of its “near abroad”, the Western Balkans stand out, in particular Serbia and

Bosnia and Herzegovina, countries where the Kremlin maintains a strong political

influence, as a result of its historical and cultural proximity (Cruz, 2021). At the beginning

of 2022, Serbia, through its President, announced the acquisition of military weapons

from Russia, antitank weapons, tanks and drones (Stojanovic, 2022). Serbia has been

one of the main centres of Russian investment, in economic, information, military and

political terms (Blank, 2021). On the Bosnian side, the political support given by Moscow

for the secession of the Serbian Republic (Republika Srpska), declared several years ago

by the President of this region, Milorad Dodik, is intended, first of all, to keep Bosnia

away from approximation and integration in NATO (Gotev, 2019) and in the EU.

Furthermore, with the proximity it seeks to have with Bosnian political leaders, in

particular the Serbian and Croatian side of the tripartite presidency (which also includes

a Bosnian-Muslim representative), Russia intends to maintain its influence (Jagiello,

2021), exploring the ethnic divisions to create instability (Mujanovic, 2017), in a region

considered of great geostrategic importance for the EU (RFE, 2021; Kamath, 2021).

With this new strategy, relations with the West in general, and with the US in particular,

are not articulated with cooperative projects, mainly due to Western threats in areas of

Russian interest. The fight against the risks associated with the westernization of the

country in political, economic and cultural terms, is assumed as one of the fundamental

pillars for the Russian identity. In addition to allowing the prioritization of exclusive

national dimensions, the maintenance of the western reference as the “other”

(Zevelev,

2016: 8) - a matrix considered essential from the theoretical perspective of the

construction of identities (Wendt, 1994: 385) (Shelling, 1960: 19) also promotes internal

Over the years, the theme related to historical issues has been crucial for the different Russian rulers, so it

is not an issue in the current Russian leadership. Just recently, Vladimir Putin accused Western historians

of wanting to downplay Russia's role in World War II, saying that the Soviets were primarily responsible for

the Nazi defeat. Radchen (2020) claims that the Russian president wants to rewrite history.

The relationship between the “I” and the “other” evidences the idea that identities can be based on

difference, thus being created through a relational context (Delanty, 2005). In foreign policy, the distinction

between the in and the out group forms the basis for the formulation of political identities, defining who the

"we" are, in contrast to the external groups, that is, the "other", which can be implied or explicitly excluded

from the national community (Bruter, 2003: 1150).

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 1 (May-October 2022), pp. 1-18

The security dilemma in Russia’s new national security strategy:

between militarism and being a geographical pivot

Sandra Fernandes, Marco Cruz

cohesion and legitimizes the political governance in place. On this particular point, the

RNSS maintains the guideline of the 2015 strategy (RF, 2015), deepening the

divergences with the West.

In military terms, relations with NATO are a central priority and concern for Russia,

resulting not only from the installation of anti-missile systems and nuclear weapons close

to its borders, but also from the successive policies of enlargement of the Alliance to the

East. In response to the recent tensions created in the Donbass region (Ukraine), Putin

unilaterally proposes a “new security agreement” with the US and NATO, which

guarantees the non-inclusion of Ukraine in NATO in the future (Ministry of Foreign Affairs

of the Russian Federation, 2021).

The RNSS identifies a wide range of threats to Russia's national security, both internally

and externally. The document’s definition of what it considers to be a “threat to national

security” is very comprehensive, encompassing “the set of conditions and factors that

directly and indirectly create an opportunity to limit the interests of the Russian

Federation” (RF, 2021). The scope of the notion of National Security, in addition to

establishing the link between the internal and external domains, that is, the indivisibility

between the two domains, identifies the relationship between the different types of

threats. With regard to terrorism and security issues in general, including threats

originating from disinformation and propaganda campaigns, there is a concern on the

part of the Kremlin to protect its power internally, giving legitimacy to measures and

restrictions imposed by the political power. The narrative used in relation to the West

and the threat that Western values entail, and which are placed alongside others such as

terrorism and extremism, materialize this same intention of legitimation.

The most relevant aspect in terms of threats concerns the way in which threats

originating in the West are understood, in physical terms, but especially in virtual terms.

The RNSS finds a central pillar of threats in cybernetics, thus reinforcing the subjective

nature of its assessment. The enlargement of Russian borders, in the identified space of

cultural sovereignty (RF, 2021: 36), in order to include States considered strategic from

its near abroad, aims to obtain legitimation in domestic and international terms in the

issues of protection of Russian-speaking communities, which are, according to Moscow,

“discriminated and judicially accused” (RF, 2021: 6). In the annexation of Crimea, in

addition to historical issues, the argument used by Putin to intervene was to guarantee

the security of the Russians, who represent the majority population in that territory

(Putin, 2014).

2. A global ambition, with a strong regional focus

Similar to the strategies of the great powers, the RNSS gives Russia a global position,

using all the instruments at its disposal: political, military, technical-military, diplomatic,

economic, and informational. In this section, we identify Russia's active intervention in

regional terms and the reinforcement of its role in global terms, reinforcing the aspects

that effectively give it this position capacity. The strengthening of Russian civilization, in

contrast to the West, and the country's global ambition mitigate Russian weaknesses in

different areas, particularly in economic terms, occupying the 11th position in world

terms, with the Russian economy representing only 1.95% of the global economy (World

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 1 (May-October 2022), pp. 1-18

The security dilemma in Russia’s new national security strategy:

between militarism and being a geographical pivot

Sandra Fernandes, Marco Cruz

Barometer, 2021a), and with regard to population, taking the ninth position in the world

(World Barometer, 2021b).

In political terms, Russia’s geography enhances connections to all continents through

different forums (political and economic), in particular the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India,

China and South Africa), and States with a strong historical connection to Russia and the

former Soviet Union (Central and South America and Africa). As a result of this

connection, economic and military relations are favoured, through the sale of arms and

military support, in terms of cooperation, the installation of bases and the development

of military capabilities. In addition to state-owned companies, this proximity also favours

the intervention of Russian companies in the various markets.

The RNSS also refers to Russia's global dimension through the UN, in particular in the

permanent seat at the UNSC. The reference to the principles of the UN Charter, as a

model for regulating the world order, intends to “call” Russia to participate in the main

global issues, thus reinforcing its weight with the main powers. The appeal made to

multilateralism, as a way of reducing tensions, seeks to claim a new global order, where

Russia, together with other powers (China), seeks to assume a prominent role and have

global institutional weight. In addition to its role in the UNSC, Russia’s ambition includes

strengthening its participation in UN Peacekeeping Operations (RF, 2021: 40).

In military terms, Russia's global claim is mainly made by its capability and strategic

deterrence. The RNSS underlines Russia’s need to maintain its leading position in terms

of technology, weapons and its entire industrial complex linked to this capability. Despite

advocating maintaining levels of nuclear deterrence, the Strategy continues to give

primacy to international understanding as a way to reduce the risks associated with its

use (RF, 2021: 5, 11-12, 39). Being currently considered the first power with the greatest

capacity in numerical terms, with 6257 warheads (FAS, 2021), both in technological

terms, followed by the US, the Russian nuclear capacity gives it this weight among the

great powers.

In the military-technical vector, Russia sees itself as a leader on a global

scale. A large part of Russian investments is sold to third parties, sometimes sacrificing

the strengthening of the military capabilities of its Armed Forces. Currently, there are

weapons and technology sold by Russian state-owned companies that are not available

to the Russian military (Connolly & Sendstad, 2017). This sale expands Moscow's

influence on a global scale, particularly in markets in politically closer countries. This is

how the Kremlin's ambition to guarantee not only technological leadership, but also, as

mentioned in the RNSS, strategic autonomy must be understood (RF, 2021: 13).

Despite the elements of global image mentioned above, the RNSS is mainly dedicated to

Russia’s ambition in regional terms, the Russian “near abroad”, which encompasses the

States that are part of the CIS. It reflects the main security concerns, including how

Vladimir Putin will consider the use of all means, including the military. For this region,

several activities and measures are proposed, including the use of kinetic resources,

In addition to state-owned companies, mainly linked to the energy and armaments sector (Luzin, 2021),

the role that the Russian private military security company Wagner plays in the foreign policy of the Russian

state is highlighted, increasingly reinforced in several countries, namely Libya (Stronski, 2020), Ukraine,

Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Chad, Sudan, South Sudan, and Mozambique (Katz, B. et al., 2020).

According to data from the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) (2021), Russia and the US hold about

91% of nuclear weapons worldwide. As far as strategic nuclear weapons are concerned, the two countries

are on par (the US has 100 more of these weapons, out of a total of 1700.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 1 (May-October 2022), pp. 1-18

The security dilemma in Russia’s new national security strategy:

between militarism and being a geographical pivot

Sandra Fernandes, Marco Cruz

strengthening cooperation with the CIS States, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and with

international institutions, namely the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU), the Collective

Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and the Union of Russia and Belarus (RF, 2021: 39-

42).

The strategic centrality of the post-Soviet area is revealed in the tasks identified in

paragraph 101, dedicated to Russian foreign policy (RF, 2021: 39). Of the 25 proposed

actions, eight explicitly concern States in this area, while others can also be applied to

this region. Besides the political, informational and cultural connection, the military

aspects, the sale of weapons and technology and multilateral technical-military

cooperation are also highlighted here.

In turn, in regional terms, the link to China, along with India, is seen as fundamental,

exploring the economic and technological aspects of this relationship, both in the bilateral

framework and in the multilateral framework offered by the Shanghai Cooperation

Organization

. In addition to issues related to the international order, political relations

between Moscow and Beijing have economic issues as a central pillar. Since 2002, when

the turnover between the two was 8 thousand million dollars, there has been an increase

in trade, to the point that in 2018 the turnover was around 110 thousand million dollars

(Larin, 2020). On the Russian side, exports are mainly related to the energy, technology

and agriculture sectors, while China is a relevant partner in the supply of manufactured

products, as well as in the investment sector (Hill, 2021). In political terms, the alignment

of Moscow and Beijing reinforces their positions in relation to the change of the

international order, seeking to replace US hegemony and unilateralism. In military terms,

Russia is one of the main Chinese partners, providing support in the training and sale of

material and technology. Together with India, the two states receive around 56% of all

Russian arms exports (Connolly & Sendstad, 2017: 11). Joint exercises between the

Chinese and Russian Armed Forces, such as the Vostok military exercises (2018),

reinforce strategic and operational proximity.

In addition to the bilateral aspects, relations between Moscow and Beijing are also

implemented at multilateral level. At the UN level, there is an alignment between the two

regarding the US leadership role in the organization. In March 2021, foreign ministers

called for a meeting with the permanent members of the UNSC, in order to discuss the

main focuses of turmoil, with the Russian minister referring to the destructive way in

which the US has acted in international terms (Reuters, 2021). In the diplomatic sphere,

the solidarity between Moscow and Beijing was expressed in the Chinese silence

regarding the Russian invasion of Crimea (Ismail, 2019). This stance has also been visible

in the current war in Ukraine, as in addition to Beijing refusing to use the term «invasion»,

it has also framed this conflict as Russia's response to NATO's policies of enlargement to

Eastern Europe (Liu, 2022). China abstained from the Security Council the day after the

start of the Ukraine conflict, in the resolution condemning the invasion (UN, 2022).

A Eurasian political, economic and military organization founded in 2001, whose headquarters are in Beijing.

It comprises eight states (Kazakhstan, China, India, Pakistan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and

Uzbekistan), four observers (Afghanistan, Belarus, Iran and Mongolia), six dialogue partners (Armenia,

Azerbaijan, Cambodia, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Turkey) and three guests, two organizations (ASEAN and CIS)

and one State (Turkmenistan).

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 1 (May-October 2022), pp. 1-18

The security dilemma in Russia’s new national security strategy:

between militarism and being a geographical pivot

Sandra Fernandes, Marco Cruz

On the western stage of the Eurasian continent, Russia’s intervention is mainly focused

on areas of traditional influence whose geographical proximity and security challenges

are seen by Moscow with great concern. In addition to political and economic support for

partner states, as a way of limiting the ability of other foreign powers to intervene (RF,

2021: 5, 26), the Russian strategic document points to the threats of NATO enlargement

and the construction of military bases in the vicinity of Russia, its allies and partners (RF,

2021: 11). In the field of cooperation regarding information, it is with partner states that

Russia proposes to work, including the use of information and communication

technologies (RF, 2021: 23). Still in relation to this regional priority, Russia is willing to

“support allies and partners (...) in matters related to security and defence, and in

neutralizing attempts to interfere (by external actors) in its internal affairs”. (RF, 2021:

40).

The post-Soviet area (RF, 2021: 42) is, therefore, the region where most of the vital

Russian objectives are identified, particularly in the field of security. Thus, Belarus,

Ukraine and Moldova stand out as a buffer zone (Toucas, 2017) (Tabachnik, 2019), that

is, as a kind of “sanitary cordon” in relation to the West, and, to a lesser extent, the

Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania), Poland, the Czech Republic, Romania and

Bulgaria. In addition to the military instrument, Russia’s intervention also includes the

information one, through disinformation and propaganda campaigns, including using the

local media. This combination of civil and military, material and virtual instruments

reinforces Russia's hybrid intervention capabilities in different regions, particularly in its

“near abroad”.

In regional terms, Russia has also taken advantage of a large part of the opportunities

generated by the lack of capacity and understanding of Western powers to act in certain

geographical spaces, seeking to support factions opposite to those supported by Western

powers in several States. Depicting the increase in tensions and conflicts in the post-

Soviet space, the Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan and the Korean peninsula, the

RNSS associates this widespread regional instability as a source for the development of

international terrorism and extremist activities (RF, 2021: 12). The centrality that these

types of threats have in Russia’s strategy, in internal (RF, 2021: 35) and international

(RF, 2021: 41) terms, including the risks associated with the use of nuclear, chemical

and biological weapons by these actors (RF, 2021:17), seek to legitimize Russia’s

influence and intervention in areas where these greatest risks and threats are identified.

Syria and Afghanistan are two examples of the way the Kremlin has guided its foreign

policy, in the sense of “limiting” terrorism and extremist activities, and also Western

influences. Political, diplomatic and military support for President Assad's regime has kept

the Syrian leader in power. The same is true of Afghanistan, where the withdrawal of the

American and NATO military contingent has allowed Russia to have an even greater role

in the governance of that State. The Taliban's visit to Moscow, to point out that their rise

to power in Afghanistan does not pose any threat to Russia, illustrates this protagonism

(AP, 2021).

The affirmation of Russia in areas where Western powers have sought to change the

status quo, mainly through democratization-Europeanization processes, aims to reinforce

Russian identity, both internally and internationally. The West has therefore been

designated as the “other” (Maalouf, 2003: 14; Fukuyama, 2018: 45), that is, the enemy,

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 1 (May-October 2022), pp. 1-18

The security dilemma in Russia’s new national security strategy:

between militarism and being a geographical pivot

Sandra Fernandes, Marco Cruz

for the identification and reinforcement of the civilizational framework. Although not a

new element, Vladimir Putin has, in recent years, used this factor to strengthen not only

the country's power, but also the legitimacy of his own power. His declaration, three days

before the invasion of Ukraine, regarding the non-existence of the State and the

Ukrainian people, serves this same objective, not only of hostility towards the West, but

in particular of affirmation of Russian identity (Putin, 2022) .

3. The Russian geopolitical pivot in a polycentric world order

We identified above that the RNSS considers all actions that jeopardize Russia’s interests.

This scope of the concept broadens, in geographical terms, Russia's scope of action,

seeking to obtain legitimacy (internally and externally) to act outside its physical borders.

In addition to Moscow's recognized military (land, air, naval, aerospace and cyber) (IISS,

2021; GFP, 2021) and technological (Jankowski, 2021) capabilities, the most recent

Russian interventions have been supported by Russian perception of its active role in the

current global geopolitical context and in the main world crises and conflicts, as well as

by the great powers, especially China and the US. In this regard, mention should be

made to Russian action and influence in Africa (Siegl, 2021) and in the Middle East

(Rumer & Weiss, 2019; Borshchevskaya, et. al, 2021).

Russia’s prominent role in the so-called “modern world”, which is marked by the increase

in geopolitical tensions (RF, 2021: 3), is reflected in the RNSS through its proposed and

coveted contribution to the stability and security of the international system. In addition

to identifying itself as fundamental to increasing predictability in relations between

states, the document highlights Russia’s role in strengthening global confidence and

security (RF, 2021: 38).

It is in the identification of Russia as a fundamental actor for the maintenance and

resetting of the international order that the RNSS stands out the most, recognizing not

only that the Western powers will seek to maintain their international predominance, but

also that there is an increase in the number of centres of economic and political power.

Due to these circumstances, there are States that reinforce their role in regional and

global terms, even intending to change the world order itself, in its architecture,

principles and values (RF, 2021: 3). Although it does not mention it explicitly, Russia's

strategic document refers to China as the revisionist power of the new global order, with

whom it intends to develop a comprehensive partnership and strategic interaction (RF,

2021: 40).

Russia's favourable geographical position, as a Eurasian power, allows it to obtain

advantages in the context of the strategic rivalry between the US and China, seeing itself

as a geopolitical “pivot” of that relationship. In addition to economic benefits, Russia also

seeks, in this pivotal position, to achieve its own strategic objectives, namely regaining

recognition as a global power. Like the Chinese government (Romana, 2005: 301-309)

(Gaspar, 2020: 43) (Economy, 2022), Russia also aims to put an end to American

hegemony, thus contesting, both in normative and material terms, a world order that is

no longer de facto dominated by the US.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 1 (May-October 2022), pp. 1-18

The security dilemma in Russia’s new national security strategy:

between militarism and being a geographical pivot

Sandra Fernandes, Marco Cruz

Despite the proximity (political, economic and military) between Beijing and Moscow,

there are areas of strategic competition between the two regimes. It should be noted

that, currently, China competes in markets and with Russia's own partners, and the

Kremlin is aware of this problem. The arms trade and disputes over Asian and African

markets are just one of the reflections of this rivalry, since both have influence in them,

and in the case of China, it is booming. In addition to military issues, there are still other

areas in which relations are troubled, with border disputes between the two countries

dating back to the Soviet period

. (Gerson, 2010; Sidorov, 2014). In international terms,

the (re)ascension of China took place, in large part, during the period of weakening of

Russia (Soviet Union and the 1990s), so there are also, in global geopolitical terms,

disputed zones and areas, the example of what happens in the countries of Central

America, politically closer to Moscow (Nicaragua, Venezuela and Cuba), in the countries

of North Africa and in the South Caucasus. There are discrepancies between the two

powers in terms of economics and human resources, with China booming in economic

terms and with a high human development index, representing 20% of the population

worldwide (WPR, 2022).

Beijing aims, therefore, to surpass the other powers, including Russia, in other vectors,

particularly in the military, technological and nuclear areas. In the nuclear field, the

Chinese construction of another field with 120 nuclear silos in the province of Gansu,

located some 350 kilometres from another one in the east of Xinjiang, constitutes both

a threat to the American territory and to the entire Russian territory (Korda & Kristensen,

2021).

Aware of the Chinese “dangers”, in addition to seeking the integration of China in different

multilateral forums, for example, in the CIS, Putin also intends to counterbalance China's

regional power through (discreet) rapprochement with the West. Thus, while realizing

the importance that Russia has for China in altering the international order and North

American hegemony, Russian diplomacy has also understood its value to Western powers

in relation to the Chinese threat, in global terms. Moscow seeks to assume itself as a

geopolitical pivot between these two actors, valuing both the broad partnership and

strategic interaction with Beijing (RF, 2021: 40), as well as the maintenance of relations

with Western powers, in particular the US.

It is in this sense of greater awareness of the China factor that the strengthening of the

dialogue between Russians and North Americans is understood. In May 2021, the new

US administration, led by Joe Biden, lifted the sanctions imposed on the company “The

Executive”, which is primarily responsible for the construction of the Nord Stream 2 gas

pipeline. The project has created many tensions between the EU and the US, as it further

increases the EU's energy (and political) dependence on Russia.

Although the Russian and North American leaders publicly maintain some points of

disagreement (BBC News, 2021), both showed some progress in their relations, in order

to guarantee “strategic stability”, and establish a “bilateral dialogue of strategic stability”

(Biden, 2021), in an attempt to strengthen diplomatic and military channels between the

In addition to economic issues, one of the main reasons that led the Russian Federation to seek its

integration into Western institutions, right after the implosion of the Soviet Union, was, as Trenin (2001:

93) mentions, the fear of an eventual Chinese expansion into its borders.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 1 (May-October 2022), pp. 1-18

The security dilemma in Russia’s new national security strategy:

between militarism and being a geographical pivot

Sandra Fernandes, Marco Cruz

two states. Steps were also taken towards understanding cybersecurity issues and

conflicts in Syria, Afghanistan and Ukraine.

Russia's understanding of its geopolitical and geostrategic relevance to Western

aspirations to contain China reinforces its status as a world power, publicly recognized

by President Biden

at a press conference after a meeting with Putin (Biden, 2021). This

Western awareness allows the Kremlin to obtain greater tolerance in relation to the

actions promoted mainly in its near abroad, and to increase its negotiation margin in

relation to its vital interests, of which the most recent example is Moscow's demand to

"close" the Ukrainian question, through the guarantee, by treaty, that Ukraine will not

join NATO.

The role of global geopolitical pivot aims, on the one hand, to obtain economic and

political benefits, in relation to areas of Russian interest that involve the two main

international actors (US and China), and, on the other hand, to mitigate the threats that

both sides can represent for Russia, exploring its weaknesses at different levels:

economic, social, political and security. The current conflict in Ukraine has exposed the

dynamics of relations between Russia, China and the US-led Western countries. In

conflicts with the West, on the part of Beijing or Moscow, in relation to areas of influence,

there is a “collaborative neutrality” (Costa, 2022) of the actor not directly involved, thus

expanding its own international protagonism. Although cautiously, given the trade

relations it has with Western powers, in the Ukraine crisis, China has tried not to leave

Russia completely isolated. This shared awareness between the Russians and Chinese of

maintaining a strategic proximity to confront Western powers is particularly valid in their

respective areas of interest and when Americans and Europeans seek to gain greater

prominence and limit their own influence in regional and international terms.

Conclusion

In substantial terms, the new RNSS is the formulation of the Russian security dilemma,

both in terms of interpretation and response (Booth and Wheeler, 2007). Very focused

on the transformation of the world order, resulting from changes in the International

System, within which the powers seek to strengthen their positions in the global

structure, it increasingly foresees the use of the military instrument as a way of

guaranteeing and imposing national interests, which are reflected in different domains

and regional areas.

Moscow seeks to be a global geopolitical pivot, taking advantage of its diplomatic and

geographic proximity to China, and thereby obtaining economic dividends. It is largely

related to the supply of energy (hydrocarbons), which support its economy and

consequently its technological development, one of the most relevant vectors of Russian

power. In the context of Russia's increasing isolation since February 2022 and from the

Unlike the previous US president, Barack Obama, who referred to Russia, in 2014, as a regional power (The

Guardian, 2014). This aspect is of great importance for the analysis of the evolution of the relationship

between the US and Russia, as Biden was, at the time, Vice President.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 1 (May-October 2022), pp. 1-18

The security dilemma in Russia’s new national security strategy:

between militarism and being a geographical pivot

Sandra Fernandes, Marco Cruz

perspective of the EU being able to redirect its energy market, China's relevance has

increased.

Despite the preponderance of the anti-Western stance, the Kremlin is aware of its role in

the relations between Beijing and Western powers, in particular with the US, identifying

itself in this same relationship as a key actor in geopolitical terms. The role played by

Russia in this context increased its capacity to “negotiate” in relation to the geographic

space it considers to be of vital interest, in particular its “near abroad”. The diplomatic

posture of the Western powers in the face of Russian “bellicosity” in the weeks of crisis

that preceded the war in Ukraine confirmed this.

This Russian centrality reinforces its instruments of power as a global power, which are

materialized in political terms through its weight in the UNSC, and, in military terms,

through nuclear issues and nuclear development. Therefore, we can, argue that the RNSS

goes from the centre to the outside. This is because it interconnects aspects of foreign

policy with matters of internal policy and the legitimacy of the government in the eyes of

the Russian population and, above all, because the image of power in regional terms,

particularly along its borders, reinforces Russia’s intentions to establish itself as a global

power, in the “new” order that it (along with China) seeks to forge. However, the global

effects of the military offensive against Ukraine question the statement desired by the

Kremlin, to the point of becoming an eventual pariah state.

The RNSS was established as a roadmap for the announced “new” international order,

within which Russia seeks to safeguard its various interests, adjusting its capabilities to

its weight in the international geopolitical context, as a power on a global scale. The

decision to invade Ukraine is thus in line with perceptions of threat and the centrality of

resorting to the military factor. The western response to the invasion of the country,

centred on the isolation of Moscow, as well as the adherence of private actors to this

stance, raise serious doubts about the materialization of Russian objectives of being a

new centre of power in a relationship of connivance with actors such as China.

References

AP (2021). Taliban visit Moscow to say their wins don’t threaten Russia. Available at

https://apnews.com/article/taliban-moscow-europe-russia-

51327432f1455020352826281c6c4e73

BBC News (2021, 16 June). Biden e Putin fazem reunião em Genebra, mas a discórdia

entre EUA e Rússia permanece. Available at

https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/internacional-57506016

Biden, L. (2021, 16 de junho). President Biden meets with Russian President Vladimir

Putin. PBS Newshour. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8OK2d_bHag

Blank, S. (2021). Can Selling Weapons to Serbia Create Peace in the Balkans?. In The

National Interest [Online a]. Available at https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/can-

selling-weapons-serbia-create-peace-balkans-194448

Booth, K., & Wheeler, N.J. (2007). The Security Dilemma: Fear, Cooperation, and Trust

in World Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 1 (May-October 2022), pp. 1-18

The security dilemma in Russia’s new national security strategy:

between militarism and being a geographical pivot

Sandra Fernandes, Marco Cruz

Borshchevskaya, A., Wajeeh, R., Rakov, D & Sim. L (2021). Russia in the Middle East:

A source of stability or a pot-stirrer?. In Atlantic Council [Online]. Available at

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/russia-in-the-middle-east-a-source-

of-stability-or-a-pot-stirrer/

Bruter, M. (2003). Winning hearts and minds for Europe. The Impact of News and

Symbols on Civic and Cultural European Identity. Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 36

No. 10, 1148-1179. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414003257609

Casier, T. (2016). «Identities and Images of Competition in the Overlapping

Neighbourhoods: How EU and Russian Foreign Policies Interact». In: Piet, R. & Simão, L

(eds). Security in Shared Neighbourhoods Foreign Policy of Russia, Turkey and the EU.

New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 13-34.

China Power Team (2021, 27 May). How Dominant is China in the Global Arms Trade?.

In China Power [Online. Available at https://chinapower.csis.org/china-global-arms-

trade/

Chu, Y. & Zheng, Y. (2021). The decline of the western-centric world and the emerging

new global order. London and New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

Connolly, R. & Sendstad, C. (2017). Russia’s Role as an Arms Exporter The Strategic and

Economic Importance of Arms Exports for Russia. In Chatam House [Online]. Available

at https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/publications/research/2017-03-

20-russia-arms-exporter-connolly-sendstad.pdf

Costa, F. (2022, 4 March). O Dilema Chinês. CNN Portugal. Available at

https://cnnportugal.iol.pt/china/russia/francisco-seixas-da-costa-o-dilema-

chines/20220304/6221d9890cf21847f0aeff68

Crowley, (2018, 2 August). OTAN 'Encirclement' May Be Creating a New Crisis with

Russia. In The National Interest [Online. Available at

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/skeptics/OTAN-encirclement-may-be-creating-new-

crisis-russia-27617

Cruz, M. (2021). «Russia in theWestern Balkans: Interests and Tools of Influence». In

Holger Mölder, H, Sazonov, V., Chochia, A. & Kerikmäe, T. (Eds). The Russian Federation

in Global Knowledge Warfare. Influence Operations in Europe and Its Neighbourhood.

Switzerland: Spinger. (pp. 315-334). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73955-3_16

Dugin, A. (2016). Geopolítica da Rússia Contemporânea. Lisboa: Instituto de Altos

Estudos em Geopolítica & Ciências Auxiliares.

Economy, E. (2022). Xi Jinping’s New World Order. Can China Remake the International

System?. In Foreign Affairs [Online]. Available at

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2021-12-09/xi-jinpings-new-world-order

Federation of America Scientists (FAS) (2021). Status of World Nuclear Forces. Available

at https://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/status-world-nuclear-forces/

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 1 (May-October 2022), pp. 1-18

The security dilemma in Russia’s new national security strategy:

between militarism and being a geographical pivot

Sandra Fernandes, Marco Cruz

Fernandes, S. & Ageeva, V. (2021). New Russian Geopolitics: Reviving Past Perceptions

and Ambitions. In N. Morgado (Ed.), Geopolitics in the Twenty-First Century: Territories,

Identities, and Foreign Policies (pp.31-56). New York: Nova Publishers.

Fukuyama, F. (2018). Francis Fukuyama. A exigência de Dignidade e a Política do

Ressenimento. Identidades. Alfragide: Dom Quixote.

Gaddis, J. (2007). A Guerra Fria. Lisbon: Edições 70

Gaspar, C. (2020). O mundo de amanhã. Geopolítica contemporânea. Lisbon: Fundação

Francisco Manuel dos Santos.

Gerson, M. (2010). The Sino-Soviet Border Conflict: Deterrence, Escalation, and the

Threat of Nuclear War in 1969. Defense Threat Reduction Agency Advanced Systems and

Concepts Office Report Number ASCO 2010 027. Available at

https://www.cna.org/CNA_files/PDF/D0022974.A2.pdf

Global Firepower (GFP) (2021). Russia Military Strength. Available at

https://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-

detail.php?country_id=russia

Gotev, G. (2019). Bosnian Serb leader: I have friends both in Moscow and Brussels. In

EUROACTIV [Online]. Available at

https://www.euractiv.com/section/enlargement/news/bosnian-serb-leader-i-have-dear-

friends-both-in-moscow-and-brussels/

Gurganus, J. (2018). Russia: playing a geopolitical game in Latin America. In Carnegie

[Online]. Available at

https://carnegieendowment.org/files/Gurganus_Russia_Latin_America_Geopolitcal_Ga

me_May_2018_FINAL.PDF

Haas, M. (2010). Russia’s Foreign Security Policy in the 21st Century. Putin, Medvedev

and beyond. New York: Routledge.

Hill, I. (2021). Russia–China: an Unholy Alliance?. In The interpreter [Online]. Available

at https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/russia-china-unholy-alliance

Jagiello, B. (2021). «The Balkan Kettle: Russia's policy toward the Balkans». Security

and Defence Quarterly, 35(3), 47-61.

Jankowski, D. (2021). Russia and the Technological Race in an Era of Great Power

Competition. In Center for Strategic & Internacional Studies [Online]. Available at

https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-

public/publication/210914_Jankowski_URMT2021.pdf?FCiMUQFzXJJJ8_NYJgOlYC8sIf8Rq

h_Z

Kamath, B. (2021). Why the Western Balkans matter to the European Union? In Observer

Research Foundation (ORF) [Online]. Retrieved from https://www.orfonline.org/expert-

speak/why-the-western-balkans-matter-to-the-european-union/

Katz, B., Jones, S., Doxsee, C. & Harrington, N. (2020). The Expansion of Russian Private

Military Companies. In CSIS (Center for Strategic & International Studies) [Online].

Available at https://russianpmcs.csis.org/

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 1 (May-October 2022), pp. 1-18

The security dilemma in Russia’s new national security strategy:

between militarism and being a geographical pivot

Sandra Fernandes, Marco Cruz

Korda, M. & Kristensen, H. (2021, 26 July). China Is Building A Second Nuclear Missile

Silo Field. In Federation of American Scientists (FAS) [Online]. Available at

https://fas.org/blogs/security/2021/07/china-is-building-a-second-nuclear-missile-silo-

field/

Krickovic, A. & Pellicciari, I. (2021). «From “Greater Europe” to “Greater Eurasia”: Status

concerns and the evolution of Russia’s approach to alignment and regional integration».

Journal of Eurasian Studies, Vol. 12(1) pp. 86–99.

Larin, V. (2020). «Russia-China Economic Relations in the 21st Century: Unrealized

Potencial or Predetermined Outcome?.» Chinese Journal of International Review. Vol. 2,

No. 1 (2020) DOI: 10.1142/S2630531320500018. Available at

https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/epdf/10.1142/S2630531320500018 ´

Liu, Y. (2022, 19 March). The Unintended Consequences of China’s Stance on Ukraine.

The Diplomatic. Available at https://thediplomat.com/2022/03/the-unintended-

consequences-of-chinas-stance-on-ukraine/

Luzin, P. (2021, 3 November). Russia’s Defense Industry and Its Influence on Policy:

Stuck in a Redistributive Feedback Loop. In Russia Matters [Online]. Available at

https://www.russiamatters.org/analysis/russias-defense-industry-and-its-influence-

policy-stuck-redistributive-feedback-loop

Maalouf, A. (2003). In the name of identity. Violence and the need to belong. New York:

Penguin books.

Mackinder, H. (1943). The Round World and the Winning of the Peace. Foreign Affairs,

Vol. 21, No. 4, 595-605.

Mendras, M. (2015). «The Rising Cost of Russia’s Authoritarian Foreign Policy». In:

Cadier, D. & Light, M. (ed.), Russia’s Foreign Policy Ideas, Domestic Politics and External

Relations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.80-96.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation (2021, 17 December). Agreement

on Measures to Ensure the Security of the Russian Federation and Member States of

the North Atlantic Treaty Available at

https://mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/rso/OTAN/1790803/?utm_source=Chatham%20House

&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=12889053_REP%20-

%20content%20update%20KG%20EC%20-

%2022.12.21&dm_i=1S3M,7O999,S3NCNT,V9O9Z,1

Mujanovic, J. (2017). Russia's Bosnia Gambit. Intrigue in the Balkans. In Foreign Affairs

[Online]. Available at https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/bosnia-

herzegovina/2017-09-06/russias-bosnia-gambit

Nygren, B. (2008). The Rebuilding of Greater Russia. Putin´s foreign policy towards the

CIS countries. Oxon: Routledge.

Putin, V. (2005, 25 April). Annual Address to the Federal Assembly of the Russian

Federation, Available at http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/22931

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 1 (May-October 2022), pp. 1-18

The security dilemma in Russia’s new national security strategy:

between militarism and being a geographical pivot

Sandra Fernandes, Marco Cruz

Putin, V. (2007, 25 April). Speech and the Following Discussion at the Munich Conference

on Security Policy. Available at http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/24034

Putin, V. (2014, 18 March). Vladimir Putin addressed State Duma deputies, Federation

Council members, heads of Russian regions and civil society representatives

in the Kremlin. Available at http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/20603

Putin, V. (2022, 22 February). How Putin's Denial of Ukraine's Statehood Rewrites

History. Times. Available at https://time.com/6150046/ukraine-statehood-russia-

history-putin/

Radio Free Europe (RFE) (2021). Merkel Says It's In EU Interest To Advance Balkan

Integration. Available at https://www.rferl.org/a/western-balkans-eu-

merkel/31342360.html

Reuters (2021). Russia, China push for U.N. Security Council summit, lash out at West.

Available at https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-china-un-idUSKBN2BF0GO.

Romana, H. (2005). República Popular da China. A sede do poder estratégico.

Mecanismos do Processo de Decisão. Coimbra: Almedina.

Rumer, E. & Weiss, A. (2019). A Brief Guide to Russia’s Return to the Middle East.

Carnegie. Available at https://carnegieendowment.org/2019/10/24/brief-guide-to-

russia-s-return-to-middle-east-pub-80134.

Russia Federation (RF), 2021. Strategy of National of the Russian Federation. Available

https://www.academia.edu/49526773/National_Security_Strategy_of_the_Russian_Fed

eration_2021

Russian Federation (RF) (2015). The Russian Federation's National Security Strategy.

Available at

https://www.ieee.es/Galerias/fichero/OtrasPublicaciones/Internacional/2016/Russian-

National-Security-Strategy-31Dec2015.pdf

Sakwa, R (2015). Dualism at Home and Abroad: Russian Foreign Policy Neo-revisionism

and Bicontinentalism. In: D. Cadier & M. Light. Ideas, Domestic Politics and External

Relations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan (65-79).

Shelling, T. (1960). The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Sidorov, A. (2014). «Russia’s Territorial Disputes with China and Japan: A Comparative

Analysis». The Journal of Territorial and Maritime Studies, 1(2), 97-114.

Siegl, J. (2021, 17 September). Russia´s asymmetric strategy for expanding influence in

Africa. In London School of Economic and Political Science [Online]. Available at

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/africaatlse/2021/09/17/russia-asymmetric-strategy-expanding-

influence-in-africa-security-moscow/

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 13, Nº. 1 (May-October 2022), pp. 1-18

The security dilemma in Russia’s new national security strategy:

between militarism and being a geographical pivot

Sandra Fernandes, Marco Cruz

Stojanovic, D. (2022). Serbia praises another arms shipment from Russia. In Defense

News [Online]. Available at

https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2022/01/03/serbia-praises-another-

arms-shipment-from-russia/

Stronski: (2020, 2 June). Implausible Deniability: Russia’s Private Military Companies. In

Carnegie Endowment For International Peace [Online]. Available at

https://carnegieendowment.org/2020/06/02/implausible-deniability-russia-s-private-

military-companies-pub-81954

Tabachnik, M. (2019) Defining the nation in Russia’s buffer zone: the politics of

citizenship by birth on territory (jussoli) in Moldova, Azerbaijan, and Georgia, Post-Soviet

Affairs, 35:3, 223-239, https://doi.org/10.1080/1060586X.2018.1542868

The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) (2021). The military Balance

2021. Oxfordshire: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

Thorun, C. (2009). Explaining Change in Russian Foreign Policy. The Role of Ideas in

Post-Soviet Russia’s Conduct towards the West. New York: Palgrave Macmillan

Toal, G. (2017). Near Abroad. Putin, the west, and the contest over Ukraine and the

Caucasus. New York: Oxford University Press.

Toucas, B. (2017). Russia’s Design in The Black Sea: Extending the Buffer Zone. In

Center for Strategic International Studies [Online]. Available at

https://www.csis.org/analysis/russias-design-black-sea-extending-buffer-zone

Trenin, D. (2001). The End of EURASIA: Russia on the Border Between Geopolitics and

Globalization. Washington DC: Carnegie Moscow Center.

United Nations (UN) (2022, 26 February). Russia vetoed a draft U.N. Security Council

resolution on Friday. Available at https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/02/1112802

Wendt, A. (1994). «Collective Identity Formation and the International State». The

American Political Science Review, 88(2), 384–396. https://doi.org/10.2307/2944711

Wezeman, P., Kuimova, A. & Wezeman, S. (2021). Trends in International Arms

Transfers, 2020. SIPRI Fact Sheet. Available at

https://sipri.org/sites/default/files/2021-03/fs_2103_at_2020.pdf.

World Barometer (2021a, 29 July). GDP by Country. Available at

https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-by-country/

World Barometer (2021b, 29 July). Current World Population. Available at

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

World Population Review (WPR) (2022). China Population. Available at

https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/china-population

Zevelev, I. (2016). Russian National Identity and Foreign Policy. Center for Strategic and

International Studies (CSIS). Available at

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/resrep23235.pdf