politicalscienceВестник РГГУ. Серия “Политология. История. Международные отношения.”RSUH/RGGU Bulletin Series "Political Science. History. International Relations"2073-6339Издательский центр Российского государственного гуманитарного университета10.28995/2073-6339-2020-2-48-61politicalscience-287Research ArticleСТРАНЫ И РЕГИОНЫ МИРА: ДИНАМИКА РАЗВИТИЯ И МОДЕЛИ ВЗАИМОДЕЙСТВИЯCOUNTRIES AND REGIONS OF THE WORLD: DEVELOPMENT DYNAMICS AND MODELS OF COOPERATIONРоссийско-американская конфронтация в оценках теоретиков международных отношенийRussian-American confrontation in the assessments of international relations theoristsХлоповО. А.KhlopovO. A.

Олег А. Хлопов, кандидат политических наук, доцент

125993, Россия, Москва, Миусская пл., д. 6

Oleg A. Khlopov, Cand. of Sci. (Political Science), associate professor

bld. 6, Miusskaya Square, Moscow, Russia, 125993

rggu2007@rambler.ruРоссийский государственный гуманитарный университетРоссияRussian State University for the HumanitiesRussian Federation202012082020024861Copyright © Хлопов О.А., 20202020Хлопов О.А.Khlopov O.A.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://politicalscience.rsuh.ru/jour/article/view/287

В данной статье кратко обобщены теоретические и методологические основы исследований, посвященных причинам противостояния СССР и США, предпринята попытка ответа на вопросы, почему не удалось наладить сотрудничество и развить российско-американский диалог в позитивном направлении после окончания холодной войны, почему возник современный кризис в двусторонних отношениях и каковы возможности их улучшения.

Критическое осмысление ведущих направлений в теории международных отношений (реализм, идеализм, марксизм и конструктивизм) дает основание автору утверждать, что концепция социального конструктивизма наилучшим образом объясняет причины нынешнего состояния российско-американских отношений. Именно идеи, верования и убеждения субъектов формируют государственные интересы, которые, в свою очередь, трансформируют нормы, правила и институты международной системы. Конструктивизм обращается к возможностям изменения характера социального взаимодействия между государствами и к фундаментальному сдвигу в понимании различных проблем при помощи формирования совместных представлений, ожиданий с точки зрения идей и социальных дискурсов.

This article summarizes the theoretical and methodological research conducted on the causes of the confrontation between the USSR and the USA; an attempt is made to answer the questions: Why was it impossible to create cooperative relations and develop the Russian-American dialogue in a positive direction after the end of the Cold War? Why did the current crisis occur in the bilateral relations? What are the opportunities for improving them? A critical understanding of the leading theoretical schools and approaches in the theory of international relations (realism, idealism, Marxism and constructivism) provides the author with the ground to argue that the concept of social constructivism in the best possible way explains the reasons for the current state of the Russian-American relations. It is the ideas, beliefs and norms of the actors that form state interests, which, are able to transform the norms, rules and institutions of the international system. Constructivism refers to the possibilities of changing the nature of the social interaction between the states and gives a fundamental shift in understanding various problems through the formation of common values, expectations in terms of ideas and social discourses.

теория международных отношенийконфронтацияконструктивизмполитический реализмгеополитикаСШАРоссияtheory of international relationsconfrontationconstructivismpolitical realismgeopoliticsUSARussiaReferencesВаллерстайн И. Миросистемный анализ. Введение. М.: Ленанд, 2018. 304 с.Carr, E. (1964), The Twenty Years Crisis, 1919–1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations, Harper Perennial. 450th ed.Фененко А.И. Современная международная безопасность. Ядерный фактор. М.: Аспект Пресс, 2013. 576 с.Deudeny, D. and Ikenberry, Jh. (2009), “The Unravelling of the Cold War Settlement”, Survival. December, pp. 39-62.Цыганков А.П., Цыганков П.А. Социология международных отношений: анализ российских и западных теорий: Учебное пособие. М.: Аспект Пресс, 2006. 238 с.Doyle, M.W. (1998), “Liberalism and World Politics”, The American Political Science Review, Dec., pp. 1151-1169.Шлезингер-мл. А.М. Циклы американской истории. М.: Прогресс; Прогресс-Академия, 1992. 688 с.Fenenko, A.I. (2013), Sovremennaya mezhdunarodnaya bezopasnost’. Yadernyi faktor [The Contemporary International Security. The Nuclear Factor], Aspekt Press, Moscow, Russia.Carr E. The Twenty Years Crisis, 1919–1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations. 450th ed. Harper Perennial, 1964. 244 p.Goldgeier, J. (2009), “A Realistic Reset with Russia”, Policy Review, Aug., pp. 15-26.Deudeny D., Ikenberry Jh. The Unravelling of the Cold War Settlement // Survival. 2009. Dec. P. 39–62.Koslowski, R. and Kratochwill, Fr. (1994), “Understanding Change in International Politics: The Soviet Empire’s Demise and the International Sytem”, International Organization, Spring, pp. 215-247.Doyle M.W. Liberalism and World Politics // The American Political Science Review. 1986. Dec. P. 1151–1169.Layne, Cr. (1997), “From Preponderance to Offshore Balancing, America’s Future Grand Strategy”, International Security, vol. 22, no. 1, Summer, pp. 86-124, [Online], available at: https://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handle/10945/43144/Layne_Christopher_From_Preponderance_1997.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (Accessed 10 Nov 2019).Goldgeier J. A Realistic Reset with Russia // Policy Review. 2009. Aug.P. 15–26.McDonald, M. (2008), “Constructivism”, in William, P.D. (ed.), Security Studies: An Introduction, Routledge, New York, pp. 59-72.Koslowski R., Kratochwill Fr. Understanding Change in International Politics: The Soviet Empire’s Demise and the International System // International Organization. 1994. Spring. P. 215–247.Mearsheimer, J. (2016), “Donald Trump Should Embrace a Realist Foreign Policy”, National Interest, Nov. 27, [Online], available at: https://nationalinterest.org/feature/donald-trump-should-embrace-realist-foreign-policy-18502 (Accessed 21 Nov 2019).Layne Cr. From Preponderance to Off Balancing, America’s Future Grand Strategy [Электронный ресурс] // International Security. 1997. Summer. Vol. 22. № 1. P. 86–124. URL: https://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handle/10945/43144/Layne_Christopher_From_Preponderance_1997.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (дата обращения 10 нояб. 2019).Owen, J.M. (1994), “How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace”, International Security, Oct., pp. 87-125.McDonald M. Constructivism // Security Studies: An Introduction. Ed. by P.D. William. New York: Routledge, 2008. P. 59–72.Prifti, B. (2017), US Foreign Policy in the Middle East: The Case for Continuity, Palgrave Macmillan.Mearsheimer J. Donald Trump Should Embrace a Realist Foreign Policy [Электронный ресурс] // National Interest. 2016. Nov. URL: https://nationalinterest.org/feature/donald-trump-should-embrace-realist-foreign-policy18502 (дата обращения 21 нояб. 2019).Risse-Kappen, Th. (1996), “Collective Identity in a Democratic Community: The Case of NATO”, in Katzenstein, P.J. (ed.), The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics, Columbia University Press, pp. 357-399.Owen J.M. How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace // International Security. 1994. Oct. Vol. 19. No. 2. P. 87–125.Schlesinger Jr., A.M. (1992), Tsykly americanskoi istorii [The Cycles of American History], Progress Academy, Progress, Moscow, Russia.Prifti Bl. US Foreign Policy in the Middle East: The Case for Continuity. Palgrave Macmillan, 2017. 232 p.Spykman, N.J. (2007), America’s Strategy in World Politics: The United States and the Balance of Power, Transaction Publishing, New Brunswick, Canada.Risse-Kappen Th. Collective Identity in a Democratic Community: The Case of NATO // The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics, ed. Peter J. Katzenstein, New York: Columbia University Press, 1996. P. 357–399.Tsygankov, A.P., and Tsygankov, P.A. (2006), Sotsiologiya mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii: analiz rossiiskikh i zapadnykh teorii [Sociology of International Relations: An Analysis of Russian and Western Theories], Aspect Press, Moscow, Russia.Spykman N.J. American’s Strategy in World Politics: The United States and the Balance of Power. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishing, 2007. 534 p.Wallerstein, I. (2018), Mirosistemnyi analiz [Word system analysis], Lenand, Moscow, Russia.Walt St. The Hell of Good Intentions: America’s Foreign Policy Elite and the Decline of U.S. Primacy. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2018. 400 p.Walt, St. (2018), The Hell of Good Intentions: America’s Foreign Policy Elite and the Decline of U.S. Primacy, Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Waltz K. Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley, 1979. 251 p.Walt, St. (1998), “International Relations: One World, Many Theories”, Foreign Policy,vol. 110, Spring, pp. 29-46.Wendt A. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge University Press, 1999. 447 p.Waltz, K. (1979), Theory of International Politics, Addison Wesley, Reading, MA.Wendt, A. (1999), Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, UK.Wendt, A. (1999), Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, UK.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.