Between Political and Economic Imperialism: Russia’s Shifting Global Strategy
In: Journal of Labor and SocietySearch for other papers by Ilya Matveev in
Current site
Google Scholar
Abstract
Russia experienced both economic and geopolitical expansion in the 2000s. During this time, the Kremlin and big business worked in tandem to assert Russian influence in post-Soviet space. However, the annexation of Crimea and Russia’s involvement in the war in Eastern Ukraine in 2014 marked a new period that severed the state’s geopolitical strategy and the interests of big capital. While the state continues to engage in open and covert military action, the activity of Russian business abroad has sharply diminished. Relying on David Harvey’s concepts of territorial and capitalist logics of power, the article explores the interplay between political and economic imperialism during Putin’s 20 years in power and situates Russia within today’s global imperialist landscape. I find that the Kremlin’s geopolitical and geoeconomic shift in 2014 can ultimately be explained by the strategic orientation of the country’s leadership, in particular, the deeply ingrained emphasis on security and ‘hard power’. However, the turn away from economic imperialism was also structurally determined by the exhaustion of the country’s economic engine that no longer generates surplus capital in need of a ‘spatial fix’.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
Abdelal, R. “The Profits of Power: Commerce and Realpolitik in Eurasia.” Review of International Political Economy 20 (3) (2013), 421–456.
-
Anderson, P. “Incommensurate Russia.” New Left Review 94 (2015), 5–43.
-
Arrighi, G. 1994. The Long Twentieth Century: Money, Power, And the Origins of Our Times (New York, NY: Verso, 1994).
-
Arrighi, G. “Hegemony Unravelling – I.” New Left Review 32 (2005), 23–80.
-
Ashman, S. and A., Callinicos. “Capital Accumulation and the State System: Assessing David Harvey’s The New Imperialism.” Historical Materialism 14 (4) (2006), 107–131.
-
Balmaceda, M. Politics of Energy Dependency (Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press, 2013).
-
Bank of Russia. External Sector Statistics (2020), available online at https://www.cbr.ru/eng/statistics/macro_itm/svs/.
-
Bond, P. “Sub-Imperialism as Lubricant of Neoliberalism: South African ‘Deputy Sheriff’ Duty within brics.” Third World Quarterly 34 (2) (2013), 251–270.
-
Buck-Morss, S. Dreamworld and Catastrophe: The Passing of Mass Utopia in East and West (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2002).
-
Buck-Morss, S. “Sovereign Right and the Global Left.” Cultural Critique 69 (2008), 145–171.
-
Bushuev, M. and M., Baranovskaya. “chvk Vagnera: vse, chto o nej izvestno. [Wagner’s Private Military Company: everything we know.].” Deutsche Welle (2020), available online at https://www.dw.com/ruAiBK-BarHepa-Bce-HTO-o-HeH-H3BecTHo/a-42596738.
-
Chubais, A. “Missiya Rossii v 21 Veke. [Russia’s Mission in the 21st Century.].” ng.ru (2003), available online at http://www.ng.ru/ideas/2003-10-01/1_mission.html.
-
Crane, K., D.J., Peterson and O., Oliker. “Russian Investment in the Commonwealth of Independent States.” Eurasian Geography and Economics 46 (6) (2005), 405–444.
-
Delcour, L. “Faithful but constrained? Armenia’s half-hearted support for Russia’s regional integration policies in the post-Soviet space.” In Geopolitics of Eurasian Integration, ed. G., Cadler (London: London School of Economics, 2014), pp. 38–45.
-
Eurasianet. Uzbekistan: Karimov Vystupil s Kritikojeaesi Tamozhennogo Soyuza [Uzbekistan: Karimov Criticizes the eaeu and the Customs Union.]. Eurasianet(2014), available online at https://russian.eurasianet.org/node/60611.
-
Eurasian Fund. Eurasian Fund for Stabilization and Development (2020), available online at https://efsd.eabr.org/upload/docs/EFSD_eng_2020.pdf.
-
Falyakhov, R. “«Pashinyan Uhodit Dvorami»: Chto Ne Ustraivaet Armeniyu v eaes. [’Pashinyan Leaves through Back Streets’: What Armenia Does Not like in the eaeu.].” Gazeta.Ru (2019), available online at https://www.gazeta.ru/business/2019/02/01/12158275.shtml.
-
Garcés De Los Fayos, F. The Signature of the Eurasian Union Treaty: A Difficult Birth, an Uncertain Future (Brussels: European Parliament-Policy Department, 2014).
-
Gleason, G. “The Political Economy of Dependency under Socialism: The Asian Republics in the ussr.” Studies in Comparative Communism 24 (4) (1991), 335–353.
-
Gould-Davies, N. “Russia’s Sovereign Globalization.” Rise, Fall and Future (London: Chatam House, 2016).
-
Harvey, D. The New Imperialism (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2003).
-
Hill, Fiona and C.G., Gaddy. Mr. Putin: Operative in the Kremlin (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2015).
-
Kirkham, K. “The Formation of the Eurasian Economic Union: How Successful Is the Russian Regional Hegemony?” Journal of Eurasian Studies 7 (2) (2016), 111–128.
-
Kuznetsov, A. “Russian Direct Investment as a Factor of Eurasian Integration.” Problems of Economic Transition 58 (4) (2016), 348–361.
-
Libman, A. “Market Integration in the Eurasian Economic Union.” Russian Analytical Digest 247 (2020), 2–5.
-
Libman, A. and A.V., Obydenkova. “Regional International Organizations as a Strategy of Autocracy: The Eurasian Economic Union and Russian Foreign Policy.” International Affairs 94 (5) (2018), 1037–1058.
-
Liuhto, K.T. and S.S., Majuri. “Outward Foreign Direct Investment from Russia: A Literature Review.” Journal of East-West Business 20 (4) (2014), 198–224.
-
Maher, D. and M., Pieper. “Russian Intervention in Syria: Exploring the Nexus between Regime Consolidation and Energy Transnationalisation.” Political Studies (2020), https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321720934637.
-
Matveev, I. “Stability’s End: The Political Economy of Russia’s Intersecting Crises since 2009.” In Crises in the Post‐Soviet Space, eds. F., Jaitner, T., Olteanu and T., Spöri (London: Routledge, 2018), pp. 139–154.
-
Matveev, I. “Big Business in Putin’s Russia: Structural and Instrumental Power.” Demokratizatsiya: The Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization 27 (4) (2019), 401–422.
-
Matveev, I. “State, Capital, and the Transformation of the Neoliberal Policy Paradigm in Putin’s Russia.” In The Global Rise of Authoritarianism in the 21st Century: Crisis of Neoliberal Globalization and the Nationalist Response, ed. B., Berberoglu (London: Routledge, 2020), Chapter 3.
-
Orlowski, L.T. “Indirect Transfers in Trade among Former Soviet Union Republics: Sources, Patterns and Policy Responses in the Post‐Soviet Period.” Europe-Asia Studies 45 (6) (1993), 1001–1024.
-
Orttung, R.W. and I., Overland. “A Limited Toolbox: Explaining the Constraints on Russia’s Foreign Energy Policy.” Journal of Eurasian Studies 2 (1) (2011), 74–85.
-
Overchenko, M. “Putin s pomoshchnikami reshili v fevrale, chto ekonomika Rossii perezhivet prisoedinenie Kryma. [Putin and his advisors decided in February that the Russian economy would survive the annexation of Crimea.].” Vedomosti (2014), available online at https://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/articles/2014/12/18/pomoschniki-uverili-putina-v-fevrale-chto-ekonomika-rossii.
-
Pavlovsky, G. “Putin’s World Outlook [Interview by Tom Parfitt].” New Left Review 88 (2014): 55–66.
-
Pirani, S. Change in Putin’s Russia: Power, Money and People (London: Pluto Press, 2010).
-
Putin, V. Speech and the Following Discussion at the Munich Conference on Security Policy. President of Russia (2007), available online at http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/24034.
-
Office of the United Nations. Report on the Human Rights Situation in Ukraine 16 November 2019 to 15 February 2020. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights(2020), available online at https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/UA/29thReportUkraine_EN.pdf.
-
Roberts, G.K. The Soviet Union in World Politics: Coexistence, Revolution, and Cold War, 1945–1991 (Hove: Psychology Press, 1999).
-
Sadygov, F. “Dividend Growth.” Gazprom (2019), available online at https://www.gazprom.com/press/news/reports/2019/dividend-growing/.
-
Shlapentokh, V. “The World Revolution as a Geopolitical Instrumentof the Soviet Leadership.” Russian History 26 (3) (1999), 315–334.
-
Spoor, M. “Transition to Market Economies in Former Soviet Central Asia: Dependency, Cotton and Water.” The European Journal of Development Research 5 (2) (1993), 142–158.
-
Stronski, P. and N., Ng. Cooperation and Competition: Russia and China in Central Asia, the Russian Far East, and the Arctic, Vol. 2 (Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2018).
-
Sum, N.-L. “The Intertwined Geopolitics and Geoeconomics of Hopes/Fears: China’s Triple Economic Bubbles and the ‘One Belt One Road’Imaginary.” Territory, Politics, Governance 7 (4) (2019), 528–552.
-
Tarr, D.G. “The Eurasian Economic Union of Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia, and the Kyrgyz Republic: Can It Succeed Where Its Predecessor Failed?” Eastern European Economics 54 (1) (2016), 1–22.
-
Terzyan, A. “The Anatomy of Russia’s Grip on Armenia: Bound to Persist?” ces Working Papers 10 (2) (2018), 234–250.
-
Treisman, D. “Russia’s Billionaires.” American Economic Review 106 (5) (2016a), 236–241.
-
Treisman, D. “Why Putin Took Crimea.” Foreign Affairs 95 (3) (2016b), 47–54.
-
Tsygankov, A. “Vladimir Putin’s Last Stand: The Sources of Russia’s Ukraine Policy.” Post-Soviet Affairs 31 (4) (2015), 279–303.
-
Tsygankov, A.P. “Vladimir Putin’s Vision of Russia as a Normal Great Power.” Post-Soviet Affairs 21 (2) (2005), 132–158.
-
Tsygankov, A.P.. “If Not by Tanks, Then by Banks? The Role of Soft Power in Putin’s Foreign Policy.” Europe-Asia Studies 58 (7) (2006), 1079–1099.
-
Tsygankov, A.P. “Russia’s International Assertiveness: What Does It Mean for the West?” Problems of Post-Communism 55 (2) (2008), 38–55.
-
van Apeldoorn, B. “Geopolitical Strategy and Class Hegemony: Towards a Historical Materialist Foreign Policy Analysis.” Spectrum: Journal of Global Studies 6 (2014) (1), http://spectrumjournalofglobalstudies.net/geopolitical-strategy-and-class-hegemony-towards-a-historical-materialist-foreign-policy-analysis/.
-
Vedomosti. “nk‘lukoil’ i Uzbekistan podpisali srp po razrabotke Kandymskih gazovyh mestorozhdenij stoimost’yu $1 mlrd” [Lukoil and Uzbek authorities signed an $1 billion agreement to develop Kandym gas field.].” Vedomosti (2004), available online at https://www.vedomosti.ru/library/news/2004/06/16/nk-lukojl-i-uzbekistan-podpisali-srp-po-razrabotke-kandymskih-gazovyh-mestorozhdenij-stoimostyu-1-mlrd.
-
Vinokurov, E. “Eurasian Economic Union: Current State and Preliminary Results.” Russian Journal of Economics 3 (1) (2017), 54–70.
-
Vitkus, G. “Russian Pipeline Diplomacy: A Lithuanian Response.” Acta Slavica Iaponica 26 (2009), 25–46.
-
Weaver, C. “Malofeev: The Russian Billionaire Linking Moscow to the Rebels.” Financial Times (24 July 2014), available online at https://www.ft.com/content/84481538-1103-11e4-94f3-00144feabdc0.
-
Weiss, O. Dependency Theory and Eastern Bloc Trade: Reformulating a Forgotten Paradigm. Doctoral Thesis (Brighton: University of Sussex, 2015)
-
Woehrel, S. Russian Energy Policy toward Neighboring Countries (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2009).
-
World Bank. Foreign Direct Investment, Net Outflows (BoP, Current US$) – Russian Federation (2020), available online at https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/BM.KLT.DINV.CD.WD?end=2019&locations=RU&name_desc=false&start=1970&view=chart.
-
World Bank. “Foreign direct investment, net outflows (BoP, current US$) (2021), available online at https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/BM.KLT.DINV.CD.WD.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 3418 | 801 | 85 |
| Full Text Views | 945 | 48 | 6 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 2117 | 241 | 15 |
Between Political and Economic Imperialism: Russia’s Shifting Global Strategy
In: Journal of Labor and SocietySearch for other papers by Ilya Matveev in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Abstract
Russia experienced both economic and geopolitical expansion in the 2000s. During this time, the Kremlin and big business worked in tandem to assert Russian influence in post-Soviet space. However, the annexation of Crimea and Russia’s involvement in the war in Eastern Ukraine in 2014 marked a new period that severed the state’s geopolitical strategy and the interests of big capital. While the state continues to engage in open and covert military action, the activity of Russian business abroad has sharply diminished. Relying on David Harvey’s concepts of territorial and capitalist logics of power, the article explores the interplay between political and economic imperialism during Putin’s 20 years in power and situates Russia within today’s global imperialist landscape. I find that the Kremlin’s geopolitical and geoeconomic shift in 2014 can ultimately be explained by the strategic orientation of the country’s leadership, in particular, the deeply ingrained emphasis on security and ‘hard power’. However, the turn away from economic imperialism was also structurally determined by the exhaustion of the country’s economic engine that no longer generates surplus capital in need of a ‘spatial fix’.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 3418 | 801 | 85 |
| Full Text Views | 945 | 48 | 6 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 2117 | 241 | 15 |