Russian Sphere of Influence and Challenges to the US Hegemony

Student Name
Syed Mumtaz Hussain

Registration No.
MSSS-1723106

Program
MSSS

Supervisor’s Name
Dr Muhammad Ali Ehsan

SZABIST Karachi Campus

 Abstract
In 2002, US has announced the end of great powers rivalries, indicating that global order
has been transformed under US leadership into a seamless unipolar. But in 2022 we are
observing a fragmenting world challenging the US hegemony. This study will examine
the Russia’s efforts to regain its influence in international affairs in the post-Soviet era.
This is because the Russian leaders focused on repairing the damage and regaining a
position of influence in the world after the collapse of Soviet Union in 1991 or the West
including the US exhibit incompetency to manage the situation by giving a little leverage
to Russian Federation or both. Focus is on whether Russia is really pursuing its quest for
great power status. This eventually requires exploration of Russia’s relation with the US,
Europe, and China. An analysis of Russia’s relations with neighbors especially with
countries those were formerly part of the USSR and members of the Warsaw Pact.
One important phenomenon, the Russian World or Russkiy Mir has been explored to
discuss how the Russian diaspora in neighboring territories has played a vital role in
shaping of Russia’s Sphere of Influence.

Tags: Sphere of Influence, Region of Privilege Interests, Great Power, CIS, EAEU, SCO,
BRICS, CSTO, Monroe Doctrine, Manifest Destiny, Continentalism, Russkii Mir,
Westernizers, Slavophiles, and Discourse Analysis

Two famous IR theories developed by neorealist of contemporary age are being used here
to explain the events. Neorealist theories, one of which presented by Mearshiemer as the
Offensive realist theory, according to which the main concern of major power lies in
achieving more and more power up to hegemonic position. While another theory
presented by Kenneth Waltz as the Defensive realist theory, according to which the
peripheral states should limit their power thirst to a minimum level which can assure their
sovereignty. Otherwise, struggling for more power gain may affect the rivals and
sometimes friends also to start a race of power struggle.
In International Politics, if a powerful state claims an exclusive or predominant control
over a foreign area or territory, it will be regarded as its sphere of influence. (Daniel H,
2019)
The main problem we will be discussing here is in the absence of Russia’s official
declaration, the great power leaders and International Relations scholars felt in to doubt if
Russia is really pursuing the global balance of power with ‘Sphere of Influence’
mechanism? And one more problem that whether the West is in a situation to manage the
new ground realities and solidify the weakening hegemonic role of the US?
To explore these problems, objective of this research are summarized as:
- To study the Russian spheres of influence in contemporary world.
- To examine the Russian policy regarding its spheres of influence.
- To explore the areas where Russian spheres of influence are challenging the US
hegemony.
Two main questions are:
1. How does Russia perceive its spheres of influence in contemporary world?
2. How do Russian spheres of influence challenge the US hegemony?
We will be using Qualitative research methodology. Discourse Analysis will be method
for analyzing the conversation would it be a vocal like official speeches or interviews or
written statements and writings etc. of international actors and scholars. Discourse
analysis helps us to seek if there is any adjacency pair, and context has to be analyzed
whether two or more discourses are used for same meaning or not. Moreover, the
coherence and cohesion of the qualitative study also guaranteed in the methods of
discourse analyses.

Upon its victory against the Nazis in World War II, Russia was able to form what is the
main discourse of this study i.e., Spheres of Influence in its neighborhood. On the other
hand, that time also marked as the successful implementation of Bolshevik revolution.
The nature of the Socialist revolution is the indispensable proliferation. This aggressive
situation alarmed the Western regimes. The Washington was asked to take solid measures
to contain the revolution and expansion of the communist ideology. Soviets were
confidant for their victories not only inside the republic but also internationally. After
successfully implementation of their nuclear program, Soviet Union deterrence was
promised against any kind of external threats.
For its large territory, strong ideology, and advanced military capable of nuclear
technologies, Soviet Union was regarded as a great power in international realm and
geopolitical realities of that time it started exerting its influence from its near border to far
end territories. The years to come showed that the West including the United States made
efforts to contain the Soviet Union outside its Sphere of Influence without being engaged
in direct confrontation.

The beginning of the post-cold war era not only remind us of the fall of the Soviet empire
but also the U.S. policy makers ceased to recognize the discourse of ‘sphere of influence’.
(Allison, 2020) For the Western leaders, the global system had been transformed in to a
Unipolar. In other words, the entire globe had become a de facto sphere of American
influence.
When reviewing the literature, Liberals were arguing to recognize the present-day Russia
as middle power, major power, or great power. While the Realists were labelling it as a
regional power only. With the passage of time, for liberals Russia was not regarded even
as a regional power. Americans were seen as exerting their influence upon Russia,
although the Russian leaders and the Realist thinkers in the West continuously expressing
that this way the situation would bring the world in conflicts again. For liberals, they can
recognize the Russian role as a great power only without claims of ‘sphere of influence’.
In other word, Russia should recognize the U.S. hegemonic role and that the Russia
should assert itself in the Liberal International Order. Russia’s geopolitical role would
only be affirmed only if like other nations Russia should also simply take its assigned
place in a U.S. led international order. Otherwise, the U.S. had enough potential to handle
the countries resist against imposing of American ‘will’ or rule with steep price. These
steep prices would include crippling sanctions, regime change, and/or such countries have
to be collapsed. (Allison, 2020)
For various reasons, the U.S. hegemony has been questioned. Consequently, ability of the
Liberal International Order has been limiting. Theoretically, Liberalism did not define
how to establish the order in the presence of various powers. The U.S. hegemonic role is
fading. Russia and China increasing their influences to assert their power, a discourse
what is now a days recognized as ‘a new era of great- power competition’, Unipolarity is
over. The World order is seeming to be as reformatting as uncertainty increased, soft
power role declined, realpolitik comeback in international arena, polarization of
international actors’ interests, contradictions growth in EU and the USA, increasing role
of non-Western countries, migration crises, secession processes, and growing populism in
the West. (Lapkin, 2018) Global economic crises of 2007-8, Russia’s war on Georgia in
2008 and annexation of Crimea in 2014, Syrian civil war, and Russian invasion of
Ukraine are a few examples that there are spheres of influence in today’s world and that
the whole globe is not a sphere of American influence. Moreover, it’s now a world
transforming towards a situation where sphere of influence would be central feature of the
geopolitics. For Russians, there are four broad sub-regions where they need to officially
describe their regions of privilege interests namely:
Baltic States --- Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania
Eastern Europe ----- Belarus, Moldova, Ukraine
Transcaucasia ------ Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia
Central Asia ------- Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan

By the Russian world, which is a useful tool of Russia’s foreign policy, we mean a
summation of those common culture and religion with seldom used political concept
reconnect the Russian homeland with its diaspora. Someone found it deeply rooted in
Russian history and for someone it is a Kremlin deigned. Its frequent use not only rally
the Russian public opinion at home but also expats in near border or far are reinforced to
serve their national interests, especially Moscow’s claims of Sphere of Influence.
Statistics showed that around 30 million Russian countrymen have been settled beyond
the Russian borders like Belarus, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan
etc.
A Russian world is the constituency of countries having significant Russian population, to
raise voice in favor of compatriots mostly against alleged discriminatory policies of the
host countries. Russian expats are allegedly discriminated for use of Russian language,
unfair requirements for citizenship, disrespect for Soviet or Imperial Russian’s memorials
or monuments. The Russian world mostly promoting Russian soft power and its active
player is Orthodox Church.
There is a term Novorossiya (New Russia), used for part of territories in south of Russia
during Imperial Russia. According to President Putin in 2014, Novorossiya: Kharkov,
Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson, Nikolayev, and Odessa were given to Ukraine in 1920s.
From the recorded history, the roots of sphere of influence can be traced back in the series
of events those led to Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage. Both rival powers were
seeking around 264 BCE in the western Mediterranean areas, especially Sicily Island and
a few parts of current day Italy, to designate as their exclusive periphery and exert their
respective influence. (Daniel H, 2019)
Comparatively in recent past, i.e., year 1823 remind us of a doctrine crafted by the U.S.
president Monroe. Monroe doctrine remained a cornerstone of the U.S. foreign policy for
around 200 years. The context and the discourse of this doctrine was the continentalism in
America. After the war in year 1812 with the Great Britain was concluded, American
officials were seeking solutions for security and possible threats from the then great
powers like Great Britain, France, and Spain. In short, in the Monroe Doctrine, the Sphere
of Influence were introduced in Latin America, to exclude further European colonization.
Since 1845, a phenomenon of Manifest Destiny first termed by a democratic leader and
influential editor Mr. John L. O’Sullivan, as an ideology that played a vital role in
American nation building introduced. The main idea of Manifest Density is that the U.S.
boundaries would stand forever and unchanged. Manifest Destiny means a right to
American to overspread and possess the whole American continent with liberty and
federative development of self-government etc. (Brinkley, 1995)
The Monroe Doctrine as well as Manifest Destiny combined encapsulated the
continentalism in America. It was Monroe doctrine, on the ground of which the U.S.
created in the Western Hemisphere its de facto sphere of influence. (Nino, 2021)
In 1880s while European Powers were near to complete the colonization of Asia and
Africa, a few agreed upon procedures started to be implemented among colonial powers
to carry out the peaceful mutual competition. This concept gave birth to legal Sphere of
Influence agreements.
After the First World War, with end of relative colonial expansion, legality and
importance of Spheres of Influence vanished. (Daniel H, 2019)
After the second world war, the horizon of the American foreign policy inclined towards
establishing an international order with liberal values to counter communist major powers
of Soviet Union and China. In response, as Daniel H. Deudney has described: after the
Second World War, the Soviet Union created a Sphere of Influence. This sphere covered
the territories of the Eastern European nations. It was created for political benefit. (Daniel
H, 2019).
Post-cold war era emerged with new geopolitical realities. Secretary of State John Kerry
declared that “the era of the Monroe Doctrine is over” (Johnson, 2013). Before that,
Hillary Clinton during her visit to express the U.S. solidarity with Georgia in Tbilisi has
claimed that “the U.S. does not recognize sphere of influence”. (Aroon, 2010)
Joseph Nye related the hegemony in soft power. According to him: “It has always been
true that success in war depends not only on whose army wins, but also on whose story
wins. But in the information age, it is more difficult than ever before to control the
narrative.” (Joseph S, 2022)
Amitav Acharya in his article counted that Liberal International Order can also be termed
as a hegemonic order. (Acharya, 2020) Hal Brands in his analysis published in periodical
Foreign Affairs criticized the idea of Spheres of Influence and termed them as
unnecessary and dangerous (Brands, Sphere of Influences are unnecessary and dangerous,
2022). He suggested that don’t let great powers carve up the world.
Some scholars used to use a variant of this term as ‘hostile sphere of influence’ to justify
what was covered in Monroe doctrine. (Brands, U.S. Can't Let Russia Create a Sphere of
Influence , 2022). From Brand’s like-minded in global affairs, the sphere of influence has
been a normal part hence no exception to the U.S. In contrast, Russia has not claimed for
establishing Sphere of Influence in its neighborhood. As after the 2008 Georgian war, the
then President Dmitri Medvedev spoke about the country’s sphere of “privileged
interests” (Medvedev, 2008)
While analyzing why Russia still pursuing Sphere of Influence, it is essential to
understand how Russians including the rulers, other policymakers, intelligentsia, and
public look Russia’s place in the world? Do they exhibit some super and special culture,
religion, and ideology? Is there any Manifest Destiny? (Like Americans), they belonged
to some chosen race? (Like Jews do claim), the geography and hence Russia’s geopolitics
playing critical role at the world stage? Russia’s proximity with Western neighbors let it
to be a partner of the West and follower of Western development approaches?
Traditionally, Russia possessed its own identity and culture. While the Western World
experiencing the Renaissance, protestant reforms and industrial revolutions etc. Russia
remained apart. (Martin, 2019). Peter the Great in the seventeenth century introduces the
Western art and culture, known as delayed renaissance. One more reason of the Russia’s
isolation from the European renaissance was that like Europe, the Russians did not
experience the Dark Ages. Peter the Great opened the Westward windows and imported
the Western technology to modernize Russia. Peter’s successors followed his path by
promoting economic development and building Russian army using imported Western
technology and know-how. At the same time these warried leaders also took measures
against threats to their despotic rule. Consequently, a noble and elite class developed in
Imperial Russia, oppose to poor and backward general Russians, they adopted the
European languages, architecture, arts, dress, and literature etc. Remarkably, French
language slowly displaced their native Russian language which regarded as the language
of peasants. Not only this, but this elite class also started considering itself as European.
They accomplish marriages with ruling families of other European nations until it was
claimed that in ruling Russians’ veins mostly the foreigners’ blood is circulating.
Resultantly, there occurred a big divide among the ruler and ruled classes in Russia.
This way the Russian identity is defined, which played a key role in Russia’s domestic
and foreign policy in past and today also. This identity is a mixed breed culture, having
Asian and European elements. In the Nineteenth century, there was a debate among
Russian intellectuals and politicians who were divided as either proponent of the West or
Slavophil. The Westernizers urged to modernize and prosper Russia by learning and
importing technologies and liberal ideas from the West with maintaining Russian state’s
essential nature. According to Slavophiles, Russia is superior to the West, although
suffering with backward technologies, but Russia has special and unique mission and
destiny. (Jr., 2021)
Lenin adopted Marxism, a Western Philosophy, which was a counter narrative of short
comings of Europe’s industrialization. Lenin combined this philosophy with the
traditional Russia’s realities. This engineered system of rules was disastrous for the
Russians. Although, gained realities were transforming the Agri-Russia through
industrialization to a military superpower. After the collapse of Soviet Union, Russia
engaged in redefining its identity and struggled to develop a good relationship with the
Western World. Under the Presidency of Mr. Yeltsin and with the hope to build a world
with peace and cooperation with the West. Russia urged to established new rules of the
games with the West. From Russia’s point of view, efforts were made to have a world
where Russia and the West would cooperate and hoping that Russia can set its own
policies at home and its rights of voice on global policies and priorities would be
regarded. For any reasons or Westerns’ interests, NATO started expanding Eastward.
Moreover, the bombing in Serbia, support for Kosovo independence, and regime change
in Iraq & Libya etc. provoke Russia and convinced the rulers that Russia’s sovereignty is
in direct threat. The West in the hopes of Russia’s role of accepting the U.S. and NATO’s
lead as junior and submissive actor, tried to convince that above mentioned events having
no threats to Russia. Resultantly, disappointment and disillusionment rolled out the
confidence of Russians upon the West and Westerns upon Russia.
Russia also had differences in foreign policy objectives as well as execution with the
West. Moreover, there were differences in perception and understanding the opposite
side. After the end of the second world war, the U.S. and the Western Europe pursued the
liberal foreign policy i.e., promoting the democracy, individual liberty, human rights and
the economic liberalism. Russia after losing its confidence on the West pursued the
supremacy of state over the individual, protection of sovereignty, and pursuit of the
national interest. In this way, Russia supported Bashar in Syria and Nicolas Maduro in
Venezuela. Russia also used to be threatened by the Western countries for its regime
change.
Russia’s differences with the West can also be observed while conducting foreign policy.
The U.S. and E.U administration pursued in general and specially while dealing the
adversaries with small to modest steps while advancing towards foreign policy objectives.
These steps are some types of confidence building measures for broader understandings
and agreements. Contrary to this, Russians started with establishment of broader
principles first and developing upper-level strategic direction together with broad
principles. Under the guidance of such broad principles and strategic direction lower-level
officials work out agreements. In other words, Russia implements its foreign policy with
top-down approach as compared to the West’s bottom-up approaches. These differences
of (1) foreign policy objectives and executions with (2) opposing side perception and
understanding, affected the interrelationship badly. These were the reasons that in the first
two consecutive decades of post-cold war era led towards bad relations between Russia
and the West. For some this situation is the return of geopolitics as an active tool.
(Kanerva, 2018)
These differences took both Russia and the West as much distant that Russia with the
changed course started seeking to build alternative global civilization with other Eastern
partners like China and India. Russians blamed that due to a partial loss of national
sovereignty in the liberal model of development, globalization losing its attractiveness
and is no more a perfect model. According to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov,
Multipolarity is about to replace the Liberal International Order. (Lavrov, 2019) It has
been deduced from Lavrov comments that Russian foreign policy’s cardinal principle is
the protection of states’ full sovereignty.

Russian rulers and policymakers believed that the U.S. led liberal international order had
come to an end. They are now crafting the ways to manage confronting challenges of
declining power’s created void. President Putin during a press conference in 2018
mentioned a Eurasian centered new world order. Keeping in mind today’s Russia as
successor to former Soviet Union, hence possessing a shadow of power and influence.
With weak economy and less impressive political posture, Russia not only successfully
retain but also able to grow its military potential to ensure its objectives be gained and its
national interests cannot be ignored. In the Russian national security strategy of year
2015, the U.S. and NATO were marked as main threats to Russia, but there was
mentioned Moscow’s interest of developing relations with NATO. On the other hands,
the latest, 2021, Russia’s National Security strategy no longer includes interests in
dialogue with Brussels. (Buchanan, 2021)
The relevant literature in multiple web sites, most of whom are referred to as official
suggest the Russia’s strategy toward the West as following:
Russia will continue to humiliate the U.S. and undermine the U.S. credibility to
further strain Western alliances to isolate the U.S. as much as possible. As soon
the U.S. be weakened significantly and Russia powered its potential by deploying
superweapons, Russia will negotiate substantively.
Recently, as an influential power, Russia has emerged in Middle East and has established
good relations along with Iran and Syria and with Israel, Saudi Arab, and Turkey. But this
time unlike Soviet era i.e., without any ideological agenda,

To the rest of the world, Russian foreign policy is apparently pragmatic and flexible.
Although, Russians using their influence on counterbalance the U.S. and Europe
influence, but they are also taking steps in containing danger of Radical Islam.
A significant expansion of Russian influence can also be observed in African continent.
In Libyan’s civilian war, Russia’s increasing involvement raised NATO’s concerns. In
various African states, Russia giving trainings to local security forces. This way Russia
will likely be expanding its influence throughout African continent and enhancing its as
great power image.
Similarly, Russian’s involvement in Latin America is also significantly noticeable. From
Cuba to Nicaragua and Venezuela etc., Russia is expanding its influence by awarding
loans, equipping military hardware and investing in energy resources.

Russia and China have much in common to enjoy good relationships in many aspects.
Both of them oppose the U.S. leading role in world affairs, both favor a multipolar order
based on balance of power, mostly, they support each other in United Nations Security
Council and other organs of the UNO. Although, there exist some differences between the
two, especially in economic realm.
Russia also expanding its influence in Central Asian states, get independence together
with the fall of Soviet era.
Precisely, Russia is struggling in two ways; first to destroy the U.S. led Liberal
International Order to give an end to the U.S. hegemonic role and second, building
another international order urging a dominant role of itself.
While performing the literature review and analyzing the events from Offensive realist
theory, it was concluded that: “The thirst for power for powerful states is never ending
and is an enduring phenomenon. The seeking of power for each state started with the
survival issues until it achieves hegemony. During the course, states urged to acquire hard
and soft powers, make alliances and institutions, declare respective spheres of influence.
Developing this way requires a strong ideology, will, commitment, and best strategic
approaches. A state cannot pursuit this way until it could introduce some kind of
hierarchy and order that would be established in the peripheral states and region. To
establish a certain kind of order there is always a need to introduce a civilization and its
values.”
For example, Manifest destiny and continentalism of Americans led the America towards
establishment of Liberal International Order through invention and production of lethal
weapons and weapons of mass destruction including nuclear, chemical, and biological
weaponries. On the hands, development in Soft power through MIT, Harvard, etc. to
Hollywood. Moreover, developing institutions like IMF and World bank and assisting in
establishment of regional organizations and alliances like EU, GCC, NATO and QUAD
etc. All these collectively took part in the development of the U.S. led Liberal
International Order with American hegemony. This also ended up with new Western
civilization having defined liberal values.
Of course, present day Russia has not been found with its present potential and
capabilities to be affective in countering the present situation. NATO’s eastward
expansion threatened Russia for Survival. As a counter and defensive strategy, its first
response in post-Soviet era was seen in 2008 while Russian countrymen in Ossetia of
Georgia were allegedly discriminated. This invasion alarm the West and new containment
measures started to be designed and implemented against Russian Federation. While,
Eurasian continentalism, Russkiy Mir, establishment of regions of privilege interest in
near border to Syria and Libya, alliances with China and Iran are least but not last efforts
and strategies those are apparently taking place in international stage.
One more point that emerged from the literature review was wrong assessment of
Russia’s status. With so many weaknesses, Russia possessing shadow power of former
Soviet Union. There were mistakes with the West while crafting their proliferation of
Western values, they did not count Russia even as a middle or regional power.
There were two primary and one secondary questions. While three research objectives
defined. Some of general findings after discourse analyses have been described above.
Specifically, we can summarize as follows:
1. To avoid confrontations and posing their soft positive image in international
affairs, Russian leaders smartly declare officially regions of their privilege
interests instead of spheres of interest. Although both discourses having same
meaning in present situation. The way Russia invaded a five-day war against
Georgia in 2008, annexed Crimea in 2014, openly involved in Syrian civil war to
Support Bashar’s regime against regime change plan of the West, took part in
games against the West directions held in China in 2021, and 2022 invasion of
Ukraine. For Russia, these regions defined its survival. For example, Russia had
no issue if Ukraine was pursuing for its membership of EU, but has serious issues
if Ukraine become a NATO member.
2. As far as the answer to second question is concerned, Russia at the moment to
establish some spheres of influence, which are not comparable to what were in
Soviet era hence posing no threats or challenges to American hegemony. But the
way Russians have designed their new way, for example, alliances with China and
Iran, establishment of institutions like BRICS, SCO, CIS, CSTO etc. if become
successful, surely potential threats and challenges would transform in to
existential ones. Situation can be avoided if the West wisely deals with the Russia
by neutralizing Russian survival concerns.
3. Former Warsaw pact countries have, no doubt, serious existential threats against
their survival or at least they would be forced to exercise either Russia’s will
instead of their own or they have to manage it through some other ways. One way
is to join NATO, that will take them as a passive actor in Liberal International
Order. This may also bring hostile behavior of Russia. As suggested in above
sections, another way was to keep Warsaw pact alive with Russian guarantees of
not to intervene in internal matters of satellite states. A final suggestion is to form
some non-aligned movement kind of alliance with balancing the Russians and the
Westerners ambitions.
 Conclusion
The Post-Cold war peace vanished very soon. The West blamed Russia for its hostile role
since 2008 up till now. But if someone follow the discourses of the events on timeline,
easily conclude that Russia compelled to acquire aggressive behavior in order to enjoy its
security and sovereignty.
The U.S. as a binding power of Liberal International Order seen as exercising the Real
politics instead of leading the world towards rules-based order. The discourse of ‘Era of
Monroe doctrine ended’ has not been claimed for transforming the geopolitics of great
powers rivalry, rather, to declare that the U.S. has successfully established a monopolar
liberal international order where itself possessing the hegemonic role.
After performing discourse analysis and taking the discourse of geopolitical competition
of post-World War II era, it has been concluded to set three core discourses in order to
define the inter-relationships of the anarchical world, viz., Alliances (liberal idea),
balance of power and spheres of influence with specific conditions of our age. Any
international order must count these pillars. These discourses would become serious
challenges to American hegemony on one side while are the better alternatives to retain a
long lasting international peace.
Russia as a continental power, needs securities against the threats with dominating its
neighbors as there is always been a demand to kept the potential enemy as far away as
possible. Therefore, there is a need of buffer zone in East Europe.
It is also concluded that together with its hostile attitude, Russia has yet claimed some of
its neighboring regions as the region of privilege interests. This kind of perception should
be honored.
References
Acharya, A. (2020, 1 14). e-ir.info. Retrieved from Hegemony and Diversity in the
'Liberal International Order': Theory and Reality:
https://www.e-ir.info/2020/01/14/hegemony-and-diversity-in-the-Liberal-
International-order-theority-and-reality
Allison, G. (2020, March). The New Sphere of Influence. Foreign Affairs.
Aroon, P. (2010, July 6). U.S. has 'Steadfast' commitment to Georgia's sovereignty.
Foreign Policy.
Brands, H. (2022, APRIL 20). Sphere of Influences are unnecessary and dangerous.
Foreign Affairs.
Brands, H. (2022, Feberuary 18). U.S. Can't Let Russia Create a Sphere of Influence .
The Washington Post.
Brinkley, A. (1995). American History. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Buchanan, E. (2021, July 14). Russia's 2021 National Security Strategy: Cool Change
Forecasted for the Polar Regions. Retrieved from rusi.org:
https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/russias-2021-
national-security-strategy-cool-change-forecasted-polar-regions
Daniel H, D. (2019, October 25). Sphere of Influence. Retrieved March 7, 2022, from
Britannica.com: https://www.britannica.com/topic/sphere-of-influence
Jilge, W. (2016). Russkiy Mir:"Russian World". Berlin, Germany: German Council on
Foreign Relatioons.
Johnson, K. (2013). Kerry Makes it Official: 'Era of Monroe Doctrine is Over'. The Wall
Street Journal.
Joseph S, N. (2022, March 1). Has Putin’s invasion changed the world order? Retrieved
from https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/has-putin-s-invasion-changed-the-world-
order
Jr., R. E. (2021, July 13). Strengthening Russia's Influence in International Affairs: The
Quest for Great Power Status. Retrieved from nti.org:
https://nti.org/analysis/articles/strengthening-russias-influence-in-international-
affairs-part-i-the-quest-for-greatpower-status
Kanerva, I. (2018, June). Russia and the West - An Increasingly Difficult Relationship.
Retrieved from Center for International Relations and Sustainable Development:
 https://www.cirsd.org/en/horizons/horizons-summer-2018-issue-no-12/russia-and-
the-west----an-increasingly-difficult-relationship
Lapkin, V. I. (2018). Transformatioon of Political Spaces in Conditions of the Transit
Towards a Policy-Centric World Order. Foreign Policy Research Fundation.
Lavrov, S. (2019). Western LIberal Model is LOsing. Moscow: Tass, Russian News
Agency.
Martin, R. E. (2019, April 25). Russia and Muscovy. Retrieved from Oxford
Bibliographies: https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-
9780195399301/obo-9780195399301-0179.xml
Medvedev, P. D. (2008, August 31). (R. a. Russian TV Channels (Channel One,
Interviewer)
Nino, J. (2021, September 30). The Monroe Doctrine in the Multipolar World: America's
Hemispheric Defence and the Return of the Sphere of Influence Politics. Retrieved
from Peacediplomacy.org: https://peacediplomacy.org/2021/09/30/the-monroe-
doctrine-in-the-multipolar-world-americas-hemispheric-defense-and-the-return-
of-spheres-of-influence-politics/