Abstract

This paper draws on the notion of “geopolitical culture” as a conceptual tool for understanding debates over the formulation of foreign policy in contemporary Russia. To draw out the value of this concept, the paper explores the symbolism of territory as a means for restoring Russia’s status, respect, and power. However, in contrast to previous studies, it traces the ways in which a concession of territory has been promoted as a device for achieving Russia’s great power ambitions. More broadly, the paper seeks to stimulate a wider debate on reconceptualizing the relationship between territory and identity in Russia, at the same time as it places Russia’s Far Eastern borderlands at the heart of debates on the spatial imaginaries of the Russian homeland. By drawing on and advancing recent theoretical innovations in critical geopolitics, and recognizing the significance of the discourse of nationalism within these framings, the paper explores the nuanced and multiple story lines that constitute Russia’s geopolitical culture. Through this approach, intriguing and complex plot lines and unexpected twists are revealed, which have at times been obscured by nationalist-territorial-revanchist narratives on Putin’s Russia. It is suggested that such approaches can also provide insights for interpreting cases and contexts beyond Russia and Eurasia.

Highlights

  • It is no accident that the Torah calls giving up territory a great sin

  • The remainder of this paper explores the ways in which the Southern Kurils have featured in Putin's negotiation and mediation of competing geopolitical visions and his emergence as a“pragmatic patriot.”It suggests that Putin's behavior is attributable to a dialectic approach to world politics which has resulted in him becoming the only post-Soviet leader to publically countenance a transfer of the Southern Kurils to Japan

  • Sixty years after the 1956 Joint Declaration, it offered a tantalizing suggestion that Putin’s patient and pragmatic patriotism was paying dividends. In his fusion of competing geopolitical visions on Russia’s national destiny, the terms of the debate on Russia in Asia had markedly shifted with the emergence of a storyline that accentuates the role of Asia in Russia’s geopolitical culture and is framed around consolidating Russia’s great power ambitions, even if it involves the cost of a concession of territory

Read more

Summary

Introduction

It is no accident that the Torah calls giving up territory a great sin. Both territory and the wealth of the land, people – those all remain the most crucial factors. As explored though the case of the dispute with Japan over the Southern Kuril Islands,1 Putin’s "pragmatic patriotic" approach to mediating the complexities and tensions in the relationship between territory and identity represents part of a wider dialectic strategy to “sublate” certain societal tensions (see Brincat 2011, 697; Richardson 2015).

Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call