This article has been published for the fist time in the 1:2007 issue of Politique étrangère.

Abstract
Russia's economy is intertwined in global markets, but is increasingly controlled by a patrimonial authoritarian Russian state that allows elites to use and maintain political power for distributing wealth among patrons and clients. Transimperialism is the Russian leadership's attempt to access the fruits of globalization and yet sustain patrimonial authoritarianism at home. Europe and the United States should not isolate Russia, but neither should they allow the Kremlin to participate in globalized markets without following the rules of free enterprise. The best path to an integrated Russia is a transatlantic strategy of engagement with free market economy that involves Russian society and business and maintains high standards for investment and trade.

This article has been published for the first time in the 1:2007 issue of Politique étrangère.

Abstract
Russia's foreign policy is powered by interests rather than ideals or ideologies. Big money and supreme power are closely intertwined. The Kremlin considers Russia's energy abundance to be its principal comparative advantage in the global competition. Within the former Soviet Union, it seeks preponderance rather than integration; with the European Union, Russia seeks a relationship of equals built on mutual interests; toward the United States, it asserts its independence and is prepared to work on a quid pro quo basis. In the longer term, the quality of the relations will depend on the depth and speed of Russia's modernization efforts. Russia's capitalism, rather than Russian democracy, is the thing to watch.

Dmitri TRENIN is a Senior Associate of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Director of Studies at its Moscow Center. His recent books include: Integration and Identity: Russia as a New West (Moscow, Evropa, 2006); Russland: die Gestrandete Weltmacht (Hamburg, Murmann, 2005) and The End of Eurasia: Russia between Geopolitics and Globalization (Washington, Carnegie, 2002).

Buy the article on CAIRN website

This article has been published for the fisrt time in the 1:2004 issue of Politique étrangère.

Abstract
The latest developments in Russia –the crack down on independent medias, the attack on Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who built the most profitable and most transparent companies in Russia, and finally the results of the December 2003 Duma elections which brought about the disappearance from the Duma of liberal democratic parties– all demonstrate that post-communist Russia is settling in for a long, gray period of semi-authoritarian rule. This essay outlines the evolution of Vladimir Putin's regime, his attitude toward Yeltsin's legacy, his perception of his own mission and his strategic agenda for Russia. The author's goal is to demonstrate that Putin's regime within the Russian historical context is yet another version of personified, monolithic, traditional power. How is Putin going to reconcile his two opposite sides –that of economic reformer and pro-Western leader– and democratic backslider? How sustainable is his pro-Western choice? What does Russia have in store during Putin's second presidency? These are the questions raised in this essay.

Lilia SHEVTSOVA is a Senior Associate of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Program Director at Moscow Carnegie Center.

Buy the article on CAIRN website

This article has been published for the first time in the 1:2006 issue of Politique étrangère.

Abstract
Vladimir Putin's Russia is evolving in contradictory ways: its impressive economic progress, fueled by oil and gas exports, is counterbalanced by retrograde political trends. These ambivalent vectors, combined with Russia's increasingly assertive regional conduct, will pose major policy challenges in 2006. The US and the EU have important security interests vis-à-vis Russia but declining leverage, making Transatlantic coordination imperative.

Mark MEDISH, an international Lawyer in Washington, is a former Special Assistant to President Bill Clinton and Senior Director of the National Security Council for Russian, Ukrainian, and Eurasian Affairs (2000-2001). He also served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury (1997-2000). He is now Visiting Scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.

This article has been published in the 1:2004 issue of Politique étrangère.

Abstract
This article examines the transformations which followed the collapse of the Soviet Union. The author analyzes the functioning of institutions and new developments within Russia (the issues of alternative elections, separation of powers, decentralisation, and 'pluralist' medias). At the same time, he looks at the transformations which the old institutions have undergone (the institutions of the army, the security services, the judiciary, education and research). He also considers new phenomena specific to a highly bureaucratized Russian market economy (the 'oligarchs', the 'clans', the 'teams', 'privatized' State areas of action and structures). According to the author, the Russian regime distinguishes itself from that of developed democracies not only through the existence of 'superfluous elements', but also through the presence of 'institutional gaps' which exist between the State and society as a result of the latter's inability to organize itself politically and defend its interests.

Alexei SALMINE is the President of the Russian Public Policy Center Foundation and the Professor of the Moscow Institute of International Relations (Political Science).

Buy the article on CAIRN website

This article has been published in the 1:2006 issue of Politique étrangère.

Abstract
This article examines the impact of natural resource wealth on Russian political life. Viewed from a political perspective, what is striking is not how well Russia conforms to the stereotype of a resource-based political economy but how well it has (so far) resisted many of the institutional and political pathologies associated with the 'resource curse'. There is little reason to think that Russia's policy would be much healthier if it had less resource wealth. Nevertheless, it seems that Russia's resource wealth does pose dangers to its political development. The crucial issue is not the nature of the resources themselves but the location of those resources in an institutional environment that is ill-equipped to cope with the pressures and problems that such wealth can create.

William TOMPSON, is currently on secondment to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), where he heads the Russia desk in the Economics Department, and is a Professor of Political Economy at Birkbeck College, University of London.

Buy the article on CAIRN website

This article has been published for the first time in April 2005 in the collection 'Russie.NEI.Visions', n°1, of the Russian/NIS Center at Ifri.

Abstract
Russia's relationship with China is complex and contradictory. Bilateral ties are more substantive and multifaceted than ever before, the two countries agree on most regional and international questions, and China is a major customer of Russian arms and energy. However, Moscow is increasingly uneasy about China's transformation as the next global power and its implications for Russia's security and rank in the world. Balancing delicately between strategic convergence and suspicion, Sino-Russian partnership faces an uncertain future.

Bobo LO is Head of the Russia & Eurasia program in Chatham House and Visited Fellow at the Carnegie Moscow Center. His last books: 'Evolution or Regression? Russian Foreign Policy in Putin's Second Term', in H. Blakkisrud (dir.), Towards a Post- Putin Russia (Oslo, Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, 2006) and China and Russia: Common Interests, Contrasting Perceptions (CLSA special report, May 2006).

Buy the article on CAIRN website

This article has been published for the first time in January 2006 in the collection 'Russie.NEI.Visions', n°8, of the Russian/NIS Center at Ifri.

Abstract
Since 2003 and after centuries of geopolitical competition, Russia and Turkey have drawn together in a new bilateral relationship. Expanding trade has been a major driving force behind this, but shared disillusionment with United States and European policies and attitudes, as well as increasing common ground on issues in the broader Black Sea region and further afield in the Middle East, have all played a role. At this juncture, the main impact of this new relationship is in Russia and Turkey's joint border area of the South Caucasus -with potentially negative implications for the fragile state of Georgia and for the European Union's new "Neighborhood Policy" in the region.

Fiona HILL is a Senior Fellow in the Foreign Policy Studies Program at the Brookings Institution.

Omer TASPINAR is the Director of the Turkey program at the Brookings Institution, Adjunct Professor at the Johns Hopkins University, School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), and a Colomnist for the Turkish Daily Radical and the Pakistan Daily Times.

Buy the article on CAIRN website

This article has been published for the first time in the 1:2006 issue of Politique étrangère.

Abstract
Since early 2005, Chechnya has become like the eye of a storm that has been gathering force across the region. Growing social anger has been the main source of energy for this storm and it is increasingly channeled through clandestine Islamic networks. Moscow was obviously taken by surprise with this escalation and its reaction was intended to suppress 'terrorist cells' by massive use of force. The swift resolution of the October 2005 crisis in Nalchik was interpreted as a victory for this policy; however, a brush-fire of criminalized violence and an underground fire of Islamic radicalism have continued to spread. The issue is not that Russia could fail to defend the North Caucasus against an Islamic uprising; it is whether there is enough survivability in its own body politic.

Pavel K. BAEV is Research Professor at the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO). His works on counter-terrorism russian policy and conflicts in the Caucasus are supported by the Research Council of Norway and the Norwegian Ministry of Defence.

Buy the article on CAIRN website

This article, result of a workshop about the future of EU/Russia relations on December, 2, 2005, has been published for the first time in the collection 'Russie.NEI.Viions', n°10(c) of the Russian/NIS Center at Ifri.

Abstract
Increasing the number of actors participating in the daily dialogue between Russia and the EU can not only contribute to solving important issues surrounding these bilateral relations but also, more broadly speaking, to those surrounding the integration process within Europe itself. The inclusion of business representatives and non-profit organizations in this process would make it easier to gage the different social, economic, and political behaviors within "Old Europe" and overcome the "democratic deficit" resulting from the absence of citizen participation in the management of Russia-EU relations, and its monopolization by state bureaucracies.

Timofeï BORDATCHEV, Deputy Editor-in-Chief of Russia in Global Affairs, Director of Studies(Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, SVOP), is Senior Research Associate (Institute of Europe, Russian Academy of Sciences).

Buy the article on CAIRN website

This article, result of a workshop about the future of EU/Russia relations on December, 2, 2005, has been published for the first time in May 2006 in the collection 'Russie.NEI.Visions', n°10(a) of the Russian/NIS Center at Ifri.

Abstract
The relationships between the EU, NATO and Russia are of great significance for all their actors and for regional security more broadly. The overlapping remit of each is complementary, and provides a potentially beneficial way to address current military and soft security concerns. And indeed good progress has been made—formal relationships have been established and there has been some practical cooperation in a number of areas. This progress is particularly impressive when considered in appropriate historical context—i.e. against the backdrop of East-West confrontation. Few would have foreseen such progress fifteen or even ten years ago. However, there is no 'triangle'—ambiguity and contradiction mar all the relationships, which are dogged by a number of conflicting interests. Moreover, although the top leadership of all three entities profess the desire to enhance the relationships, it is clear that a number of constituencies on all sides do not seek similar developments, for a number of reasons. This has slowed cooperation significantly. EU-NATO cooperation therefore remains problematic, and the West's relations with Russia are by no means past some 'point of no return', to the confrontation of the past half century.

Andrew MONAGHAN is the Founder and Director of the Russia Research Network, an independent research organization based in London. He is also a Research Associate at the Conflict Studies Research Centre and a Visiting Lecturer in the Defence Studies Department, based at the Defence Academy of the UK.

Buy the article on CAIRN website