Conclusion: Foreign Policy as the Continuation of Domestic Politics by Other Means

Abstract

Conclusion 205 symbolically). Most crucially, the specific and extraordinary political configuration born out of the Maidan revolution provided – depending on interpretations – opportunities or incentives for Moscow to act. It was during the decisive period of political vacuum (following the fall of Viktor Yanukovych) and of uncertainty (after the establishment of an interim government in which southern and eastern regions were under-represented and a weekend of feverish legislating in the Ukrainian parlia-ment) that Russia intervened in Crimea and eventually decided to annex it. This peculiar context certainly influenced the Kremlin's choice of instrument in pursuing its objectives in Ukraine. Before the Yanukovych regime fell, Russia had used coercive measures, such as trade restrictions, in an attempt to deter Ukraine from joining Western politico-economic structures and, in particular, from signing an Association Agreement with the EU. After the fall of Yanukovych, Russia resorted to actions such as annexing Crimea and manufacturing unrest in the east of Ukraine in pursuing the same objective. Although speculative and counterfactual reasoning is in essence never fully satisfactory, one can wonder whether Russia would have resorted to retaliatory measures of that magnitude had Yanukovych signed the Association Agreement in November 2013. This, highlights the influence of the political context of the Maidan revolution as a more decisive factor in Russia's decisions than the pros-pect of Ukraine's association with the EU. At the same time, however, while the peculiar political context prevailing in Ukraine certainly played a crucial role, Moscow's actions before and during the Ukraine crisis also bear the mark of more profound trends that have characterized Russia's foreign policy since the start of Putin's third presidential term. These emerging trends, which the contributors document by approaching Russia's foreign policy from various angles and focusing on its different segments, can be summa-rized as follows: an increasingly nationalistic tone in foreign policy discourse with a strong emphasis on traditional values; the growing characterization of Europe as a threatening 'other'; an uncompromising attempt to constitute Russia's immediate post-Soviet neighbourhood as a trading bloc and a political buffer (notably through the Eurasian Union project and an investment in soft power instruments); a rhetor-ical 'pivot' to Asia. This volume has sought not only to take stock of these emerging trends but also to explain them. The main findings that emerge from this collective analytical endeavour are that the chief drivers of Russia's contemporary foreign policy behaviour are objectives and impera-tives linked to domestic regime consolidation. The concern for regime 206 David Cadier and Margot Light stability has been at the heart of Putin's foreign policy since his first year in office (2000), but certain recent external and internal developments have exacerbated it. The colour revolution movement of the mid-2000s exposed the fragility of several post-Soviet regimes, as well as the attrac-tiveness of the Western political model for a significant share of their societies. These movements were seen in Moscow as orchestrated from the outside, and political transformation has increasingly been regarded since then as a geopolitical tool wielded by the West. 2 The deterioration of Russia's economic situation following the financial crisis of 2008/9 put into question the implicit autocratic social contract prevailing in Putin's Russia, where the encroachment on political and civic liberties was compensated by improved economic conditions based on sustained growth. The Kremlin has had to find new sources of legitimacy, and in this context foreign policy constitutes a possible terrain and nationalism a potential resource. Finally, the public protests in Russia after the 2011 parliamentarian elections directly and explicitly challenged the rule of the Putin regime, which had to find new means to consolidate its support base. Putin's strategy of regime consolidation has affected foreign policy both because some internal measures and postures have ramifications for Russia's external behaviour and because international politics consti-tutes an arena where Putin can score points with the domestic audience. Since 2012, this strategy has consisted in political insulation, 'national community building' and 'mental self-determination', which has led to a practical, rhetorical and ideational distancing of the West and of Europe, as they are seen both as a source of external political influence threatening to the regime and as an ontological 'other' in opposition to which Russia's identity can be reinforced. As hinted by the description of events above, perceptions both individual (i.e., Putin's) and collective have also played a large role in assessing the threats to regime stability and framing policy responses. We set out below some of the main – often convergent – findings our contributors have reached about the way Russia's foreign policy has changed recently and about the determinants of these changes.