The Dichotomy of Regional and Global leadership in Modern International Relations on the Example of Russia and Turkey
Abstract
The urgency of the issues of the world order management is associated with the escalation of regional conflicts, global challenges of our time, the increasing influence of non-state actors in the international field and the increasing instability of the system as a whole. In the face of opposition to Western hegemony, competition for resources and influence in the region and in the world is increasing. The system of international relations is undergoing changes and in the conditions of this transformation, the actors of the “periphery” and “center” are reconfiguring – the era of the Western-centric world is passing away. The new conditions of the system dictate new rules of the game – imposing one’s will by intimidation and military-economic methods has become ineffective and meets resistance, and therefore individual countries have begun to fight hegemonism. The term that most clearly reflects modern relations on the world stage can be called “leadership”. This phenomenon is considered in the article through the “center–periphery” paradigm, global and regional leadership is distinguished by the examples of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Turkey. The foreign policy course of the two countries, their main priorities and motivation are being analyzed, two leadership models are being compared based on the selected parameters. The prospect of Russia becoming one of the centers of the future world order is being outlined, and the possibility of Turkey to stay in the position of a regional leader and expand its zones of influence is being explored. In order to preserve and retain their already established positions, it is necessary to adhere to a multi-vector policy that corresponds to national interests. Ideas on the development and structure of the new world order and the ability to take responsibility for the processes taking place on the world stage are an integral part of strengthening the positions of the two countries.
About the Author
M. A. Mayorova
Middle and Post-Soviet East Institute of Scientific Information on Social Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences (INION RAN)
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Maria A. Mayorova, Junior researcher, Department
Nakhimovsky Avenue, 51/21, Moscow, 117418
References
1. Avatkov V.A. (2020). The Ideological Factor and the Turkic Element in Russia’s Policy through the Prism of Transformation of the World Order. Russia and the contemporary world, no. 3 (108), pp. 38–49. DOI: 10.31249/rsm/2020.03.03.
2. Avatkov V.A. (2021a). The Post-Soviet Space and Turkey: The Results of 30 Years. Outlines of Global Transformations: Politics, Economics, Law, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 162–176 (in Russian). DOI: 10.23932/2542-0240-2021-14-5-8.
3. Avatkov V.A. (2021b). Turkish “Hub” Ideology. Oriental Almanac, pp. 8–13 (in Russian).
4. Avtsinova G.I. (2015). Hegemonism and state leadership: historical and modern aspects. PolitBook, no. 3, pp. 87–102 (in Russian).
5. Batalov E.Y. (2010). The beginning of the XXI century: a world without poles, a world without a global leader. Leadership and competition in the world system: Russia and the USA, A.D. Bogaturov, T.A. Shakleina (eds.). Moscow : KRASAND, pp. 41– 45 (in Russian).
6. Bdoyan D.G. (2017). Russian-Turkish contradictions in the Middle East. Obozrevatel–Observer, no. 6 (329), pp. 23–33.
7. Bogaturov A.D. (1997). Great Powers in the Pacific Ocean. History and Theory of International relations in East Asia after World War II (1945–1995). Moscow : Konvert – MONF, 353 pp. (in Russian).
8. Bogaturov A.D. (2006). Leadership and decentralization in the international system. International Processes, no. 3 (12), pp. 48–57 (in Russian).
9. Davutoğlu A. (2010). Strategic depth. Turkey’s international position. Davutoğlu A. Stratejik derinlik. Türkiye’nin uluslararası konumu. İstanbul : Küre Yayınları, 584 pp. (In Turkish).
10. Druzhilovsky S.B., Avatkov V.A. (2013). Foreign policy ideologems of Turkey (2002–2012). Obozrevatel – Observer, no. 6, pp. 73–88 (in Russian).
11. Gramsci A. (1990). Art and Politics: In 2 volumes. Moscow : Iskusstvo, 336 pp.
12. Keohane R. (1989). International Institutions and State Power; Essays in International Relations Theory, Boulder (Col.) : Westview Press, 280 pp. DOI: 10.7202/702764ar.
13. Kortunov S.V. (2008). Russia on the way to world leadership. Security of Eurasia, no. 4, pp. 7–35 (in Russian).
14. Machiavelli N. (1982). The Sovereign: Selected Writings. Moscow : Khudozh. lit., 503 pp.
15. Minyar-Beloruchev K.V. (2019). The core and periphery of the system of international relations: the nature of interaction. New and Modern history, issue 6, рр. 5–18 (in Russian). DOI: 10.31857/
16. S013038640007606-4.
17. Mozloev A.T. (2021). Russia, Turkey and Iran on the way to potential leadership in the regional balance of forces. Vostochny Almanac: collection of scientific articles, Diplomatic Academy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Moscow : Kvant Media Limited Liability Company, pp. 73–78 (in Russian).
18. Shakleina T.A. (2011). Great Powers and Involved Subsystems. International processes, vol. 9, no. 2 (26), pp. 29–39 (in Russian).
19. Shcherbakova A.Y. (2016). Issues of regulation of the world space in the XXI century. Obozrevatel – Observer, no. 8 (319), pp. 30–38 (in Russian).
20. Shcherbakova A.Y. (2017). Russia and the East: Problems of security and political leadership. Russia and the Modern World, no. 4 (97), pp. 194–201 (in Russian).
21. Shils E. (1961). ‘Centre and Periphery’ in The Logic of Personal Knowledge; Essays Presented to Michael Polanyi on his Seventieth Birthday, 11th March 1961, London : Routledge & Paul, pp. 117–130.
22. Shils E. (1972). Society and societies: macrosociological approach. American Sociology: perspectives, problems, methods, Moscow : Progress, pp. 341–359.
23. Temnikov D.M. (2011). Leadership and self-organization in the world system: Scientific edition. Moscow : Aspect Press, 173 pp. (in Russian).
24. Wallerstein I. (1996). The inter-state structure of the modern world-system, Smith S., Booth K., Zalewski M. (eds.). International theory: positivism and beyond, Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, pp. 87–107.
25. Wallerstein I. (2001). Analysis of world systems and the situation in the modern world. Translate from English P.M. Kudyukin, B.Yu Kagarlitsky (ed). St. Petersburg : Publishing house “University Book”, 416 pp. (in Russian).
26. Wallerstein I. (2004). Periphery. Economic theory. J. Ithwell, M. Milgate, P. Newman (ed.)., Moscow : INFRA-M. рр. 671–679 (in Russian).
Review
For citations:
Mayorova M.A. The Dichotomy of Regional and Global leadership in Modern International Relations on the Example of Russia and Turkey. Outlines of global transformations: politics, economics, law. 2022;15(3):69-83. (In Russ.)
Views:
804
Email this article 