Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

FEDERAL STATE AUTONOMOUS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION

FOR HIGHER PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION

NATIONAL RESEARCH UNIVERSITY HIGHER SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS

Faculty of the World Economy and International Affairs

BACHELOR'S THESIS

The issue of the representation of Russia-US diplomatic relations of the 1990s-2010s in the political discourse

Makareva Anastasiia Yurievna

Supervisor Professor

Faculty of World Economy and International Affairs

Bratersky M. V.

Moscow, 2020

Abstract

The modern age has been significantly described in terms of the increasing dominance of the multilateral diplomacy, held in the structure and frames of meetings, assemblies, and contributions related to a broad agenda, including the patters of security, economy, politics, and others which are located both at the internal and external levels of analysis and actors involved. When it comes to the debate not only over the exact evidential depiction but also over the exact analysis of mutual relationships among states in international relations, the issue of the representation is generally accepted to be subjective due to the nature of its subject, derived from the individual interpretations and socially attributed meanings, and the object applied to describe it. As a result, seldom do scholars attempt to approach it from a research perspective. Hence, the aim of the presented thesis is dedicated to analyzing and cover the untested and unresearched aspect of the paradigm of diplomacy in international relations, mainly dealing with the representation and problematization of the bilateral Russia-US diplomatic relations of the 1990s-2010s in the political discourse. The paper opens with the general overview on the historical background on the issue, setting the context for the further explanatory discussion, and then proceeds to the theoretical and empirical analysis predominantly based on the critical theory approach towards international relations, embodied into the constructivist and post-structuralist approaches, necessary to depict the discoursive patterns in the agenda. The described issue will be carefully approached using the detailed discourse and content analysis borrowed from the existing theoretical observations depicted in the academic literature, supported by empirical observation of the discourse in media sources and official documents. This issue will be of interest both to researchers in the field of international relations, as well as to practitioners and politicians involved in political discourse issues, in particular, for those working with the cautiously forecasting the future developments in the Russia-US bilateral relations.

Keywords: bilateral Russia-US relations, diplomacy, impact on power distribution, discoursive representation

Table of Contents

political diplomacy international relations

1. Introduction: describing the research design applied in the work

2. Literature review

3. Philosophical analysis: auctorial hypothesis and the Foucauldian argument

3.1 Auctorial hypothesis

3.2 Foucauldian argument

4. Setting the historical context

5. Media representation of the Russia-US diplomatic relations

5.1 US Case study: The New York Times (NYT)

5.2 Russian case-study: Kommersant

6. Official representation of the Russia-US diplomatic relations

6.1 US Strategies of Security and Defence

6.2 Russian Concepts of National Security

7. Conclusion and further implications

8. References

8.1 Academic literature

8.2 Newspaper articles

8.3 Official documents

Appendix 1

Appendix 2

Appendix 3

1. Introduction: describing the research design applied in the work

Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.

George Orwell Orwell, G. (2014). Why I write. Penguin UK.

It is generally agreed in the modern discourse representation of the diplomacy, from a perspective of an academic paradigm in politics and international relations, that there is no clear consensus within the academic community regarding its significant characteristics, patterns, and research approaches towards it. On the contrary, many of them dissent in opinions, attributing this latent conflict to the behavioral dependency and critical interpretation of the agenda. To reduce the scope of the research, the analysis depicted in the presented thesis will approach the issue using the case of the bilateral Russia-US diplomatic relations in the 1990s-2010s and its representation in the academic literature, as well as its dependency on the media representation, necessary for competent foreign policy analysis.

First and foremost, it is necessary to give a precise definition to both object and subject matter of the research used in this paper. Particularly, the object matter is diplomatic relations between Russia and the US in the time period of the 1990s and 2010s, while the subject selected to research and comprehend the presented study can be summarized as the dynamics of its discoursive representation embodied in the academic literature and media sources.

The research problem of the presented work rests upon the considerable and fierce debate over the scholarly investigation and discursive representation of the subtopics and issues related to the agenda of the bilateral diplomatic relations between Russia and the US. To a larger extent, this can be expressed by the lack of consensus over the position which may be held as a distinctive pattern, dimension of political discourse, that may be either supported or disclaimed. Hence, this paper will aim to identify, describe, and give auctorial classification on how review articles, opinion columns, and analytical think-tanks represent the agenda of Russia-US bilateral relations in the 1990s-2010s. As distinctive patterns applied to analyze the representation dependency above, the observation on the identity of presidents, spokesmen of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, ambassadors, and the general image of policies undertaken will be used and covered.

Resting upon the limited background of the previous academic works on the agenda covered, the research question of this work can be presented as following: what image is generally perceived in political discourse when it comes to the debate over Russia-US bilateral diplomatic relations? Along the same lines, this research paper will also consider to what extent are the attitudes towards this bilateral relationship is shaped by the discursive patterns and representation borrowed precisely from the scholarly and media literature.

The general research hypothesis considers the following proposition: the subjectivity of the contemporary political discourse allows to impact public perceptions and value-judgments regarding political actions and their cause-and-effect relationships. Hence, it also concerns developing and visualizing (and, to a certain extent, imposing) official approaches and opinions on bilateral diplomatic relations between Russia and the US in the minds of the global community. These, for the purpose of initial analysis, may be subdivided into two abbreviations: H1 and H2, respectively.

Therefore, by being directly related to the major research question and hypothesis, the immediate objectives and expected outcomes of the following paper could be derived as follows: to identify, analyze and classify the symbolic distinction among a variety of images of the bilateral diplomacy conducted by Russia and the US during the selected period, namely, the 1990s-2010s, and the way it impacted the subsequent attitudes towards it. Specifically, three major steps would be undertaken to pursue these objectives:

(1) To analyze the literature review on the issue, depicting the disoursive patterns to comprehend the initial interaction with it;

(2) To examine and evaluate the embedded discourse in the literature coverage among the sources of Russia and the US respectively, including

- Official documents,

- Public media sources.

(3) To provide auctorial dialectics on the aforementioned patterns.

Apart from that, as the analysis conducted in this paper is supposed to be an important extension of the prior literature, it is also expected to fill in the gaps in the existing research by providing a plurivalent theoretical synopsis on the discussion over the depiction of the diplomatic relations in political discourse.

The chronological framework of this research covers a specific time period - starting from the 1990s, essentially, 1992, the year after the dissolution of the Soviet Union (USSR) which happened on 26^th December 1991, and ongoing until 2016, when as a result of the election process, Donald Trump became a president of the US Scholuim: Such frame has been deliberately applied due to the fact that the Trumps presidency is continuing, meaning that he has not been succeeded by the next candidate, which does not allow to objectively reflect on the impact of the timeperiod of his chairmanship.. This time frame was selected predominantly to emphasize the development of the post-Cold War diplomatic relations between two states, both of which have undergone various political and economic alterations. Similarly, here it is also essential to consider that the period of the 1990s is directly linked with the impetuous rise of social media platforms, for instance, Facebook. This fact hypothetically impacted the increasing public interest towards discourse, as a form of expression, allowing a higher range of media coverage of events and, consequently, greater embeddedness of society into salient agenda. Accordingly, these years were marked with the radical change in the social paradigm embodied in the increasing civic engagement in both states and the gradual spread of democratic values, consequently, shaping social, and political awareness on the ongoing agenda. Similarly, the 2010s are marked with the spread of smartphone technological advances impacting the increased exchange of information, its access, and awareness development. Although this paper will predominantly focus on the academic discourse, not the media one, still, the patterns mentioned above should not be overlooked by being considered as the ones participating in the process of information exchange.

The theoretical framework of this paper will substantially rest upon the critical approaches to international relations, particularly on social constructivism and post-structuralism. These schools of thought were selected firstly to highlight discursive patterns dependent on the subjectivity of dependent variables there, as a case in point, those dealing with the role of ideas and relatives, respectively. Another theoretical framework on which this paper would primary rely is the Foucaldian discourse analysis largely depicting the meditation between power and subjectivity, by adding the relationship among such notions as knowledge, meaning, interpretations which are liked into identifying patterns, such as language and behavior. Similarly, the genealogical approach described by Foucault will also be used, depicting the frame between power and dominance produced by the development of the discourse within a particular historical period Scholium: This term has to deal the depiction both from the perspectives of timeframe and spatiality.. What should be also emphasized in terms of theoretical analysis applied is the philosophical hypothesis dealing with the idea of the estrangement of the ideas from the personality Der Derian, J. (1987). Mediating estrangement: a theory for diplomacy. Review of International Studies, 13(2), 91-110.. The estrangement paradigm, in turn, refers to the theory of alienation, further elaborated in the Literature review section of the presented paper with the explicit reference to the positions expressed by Foucault. Apart from that, the theories approaching the polarity issues and the distribution of power will also be reflected in the research.

Furthermore, a constructivist theory becomes relevant, first and foremost, from the perspective of the repudiation of the existence of any objective social and political reality, that would be independent of the side effects of perception and personal understanding. Secondly, constructivism was also selected based on the idea that it is not a rational choice theory, unlike realism and liberalism, because it deals with the idea that effects and their outcomes are shaped by the social construction of reality drawn by the individual attitudes of actors themselves. In turn, it is worth mentioning that speaking about discourse from the post-structural approach, it is essential to consider that discourse itself is more than just language. Rather it is referring to the way how politics is performed using symbols which are not necessarily words, being, in other words, visual representations. Hence, it becomes necessary while dealing with the explanations of meanings rooted in the discourse analysis.

Additionally, as this paper will elaborate on the essence of the bilateral diplomatic relations and its representation, it is necessary to give an overview of the theoretical observations on diplomacy. Being presented as the so-called `distinctive skill of negotiation' Der Derian, J. (1987). Mediating estrangement: a theory for diplomacy. Review of International Studies, 13(2), 91-110., diplomacy prevalently deals with the presentation of the image of policymakers, engaging in the behavioralist-based approach towards this kind of observation. Along the same lines, the diplomatic theory also deals with the representation of power and diplomacy, most closely elaborated under the term diplomatic culture, extensively depicted by Bull (in Constantinou, 2015). Further definitions of diplomacy will also be described in the Literature Review.

Consequently, this point leads to the description of the methodological aspect of the research. Specifically, assuming that this paper will predominantly rest upon the qualitative rather than quantitative analysis which, presumably, deals with its reliance on discourse analysis that conducted through the two-dimensional approach, emphasized by Derrida (in Fleming, 1996). It requires `first reading', including capturing dominant interpretations, and then, `second reading', depicting the instability points and controversial aspects, thus, becoming a critical analysis of the issue. Moreover, the discursive approach was selected to explore the construction of meanings in human interaction to examine the overall perception and representation of the subject and object matters of the presented work. It has mostly to deal with the research agenda embodied in the political discourse representation, as discourse, by definition, refers to the knowledge itself. Similarly, the argument proposed by Giddens (1982) regarding the double hermeneutics is relevant in highlighting the multidimensional explanatory relationship between the variables of the following paper.

While dealing with the analysis of the narrative presented in both media and academic resources, a certain extent of the `methodological imagination' would be applied, reflecting the epistemological side of the introspection. This was implemented mainly in the shed of (mis)representation of facts, allowing the spatium contemplation over the ambiguity and representation of the qualitative forms of information. Additionally, this becomes relevant when placing the individuals' covered in the historical context, demanding the accurate perception of their experience, background and temporary events, and overall environment. Methodological imagination also allows a certain extent of freedom to cover various types of paradigms, a case in point for the purpose of this paper, the interpretivist and constructivist framework will be used in dealing with the empirical evidence, while a more realist perspective would be applied to strengthen the theoretical images applied. Generally, the methodological imagination would be used in the empirics, encompassing in itself:

- Image work, when it comes to the written visualization of the supporting background events;

- Narrative picturing, amplified to depict the emotional attribute of the actors, namely, the author's attitude reflected in the articles applied in the empirical evidence.

It is essential to note that as long as the research process itself is a “dialectical, relational and profoundly human process itself” (Fine, 2007), the ambiguity and fallibility of the auctorial reflection is unavoidable, as in many instances in the discourse analysis. Hence, it is worth highlighting that the author is aware of the fact that lack of extended quantitative methods may bring weakness to the presented research, narrowing it to more descriptive analysis, and, thus, not allowing to apply its findings to other cases. However, as the primary aim of this paper was to give a comprehensive discource account on the agenda, the narrative analysis seems to be the most suitable one. Furthermore, the work also entails the emotional noninterference of the author of the paper, especially in the instances of the narrative analysis, to make good on validity and generability. Lastly, it may serve a well-grounded basis for the further extension of this work, where the deep quantitative examination and model-depiction, for instance, regression-based one, could be implemented.

Accordingly, classification grouping adjusted to the qualitative analysis measurement will be used and applied to develop and describe the auctorial classification of the representation of the Russia-US bilateral relations in the 1990s-2010s, based on its representation in different sources, including newspaper articles and official documents, hence, allowing the multicategory interpretations that will improve the quality of the research conducted. This measure bases on the outcomes of the preceding step, which includes the content analysis of the existing academic literature, extensively described in both the historical and theoretical parts of the Literature Review. A similar step would be applied in terms of the elaboration on the world cloud building necessary to depict the most salient descriptive patterns applied in the empirical evidence covered.

Regarding the levels of analysis applied in work, it should be noted that this research is expected to cover system, institutional and individual levels of analysis. The system-level becomes relevant as it deals with the analysis and interpretation of the political discourse interpretation and its impact on international relations and systems as a whole. While dealing with the discourse analysis, it is essential to note that it embodies a cluster of related research paradigms (Given, 2008). For this paper, concerns over the sociolinguistics and philosophy applied to the international relations' analysis would be applied. The institutional structure is essential to describe the domestic policies impacting the state and non-state actors involved in the representation and image-building of the bilateral diplomatic relations of Russia and the US. Finally, the individual level will be applied while describing the personalities of actors involved, for instance, the characteristics of state leaders. Last but not least, various history databases will also be used to depict the timeline of particular events aimed to figurate the flow of events during a specific period applied to the analysis of the case studies, as well as media resources were selected to back the academic argumentation, combined with their impact on a formation and proliferation of democratic process, which the US was pursuing and Russia was willing to pursue at the beginning of a selected time period.

The academic significance of this paper is predominantly grounded on the ideas that current scholarly literature on the described agenda lacks sufficient analysis and extensive research insights, mostly covering the general overview on the bilateral relations between Russia and the US. Along the same lines, it overlooks academic investigation on the way how this mutual intercourse of two states is presented in the political discourse backed by the theoretical review of its representation in media and academic literature. The similar attitude applies to the paradox of misrepresentation and misinterpretation, the problem of which lies in the debatable attitudes towards the accountability of the information regarding the agenda accelerated and accumulated in various sources.

Before moving to the Literature Review, it is worth mentioning that narrative of this section will be structured into two major parts: firstly, research over the academic literature on the issue, mainly covering the theoretical approaches and schools of thought dealing with the described agenda will be given before moving to the initial analysis, and, secondly, the brief description of the historical context important for setting the context will be presented applied to selected empirical evidence, entailed in the academic and media depiction of the agenda. However, it should be emphasized that for the purpose of this research proposal, the Literature Review will be presented in the manner of general overview as an amalgamation of both historical background and theoretical observations. Accordingly, the theoretical analysis will follow a deductive logic, beginning with general statements and then reducing it to a particular case, while empirical analysis will be presented and organized following an inductive logic starting from specific cases and applying the consequently depicted frame on creating a more general image.

Finally, it also should be admitted that there exists a substantial body of literature which deals with a profound analysis of the cause-and-effect sequence of background events impacting the evolution of the relationship of the bilateral communication between Russia and the US (Rumer, 2004; Der Derian, 2009; Sending et al., 2015).

2. Literature review

Theoretical approaches towards research subject

The considerable importance of diplomacy in international relations should not be denied. Specifically, Bull (1977) concurs that it should be considered among the most important institutions of international society. To conceptualise more precisely the definition applied for the purpose of the presented paper, it is essential to address the etymology of the notion of diplomacy. It dates back to the Latin diploma (genitive diplomatis) dealing with a moral attachment to a certain extent of privilege Retrieved from the Online Etymology Dictionary https://www.etymonline.com/word/diplomacy , thus referring to the access to power and ability to influence the decision-making process above from individual-level.

From the theoretical perspective, diplomacy, as an academic phenomenon, has remained reluctant to any specification or approach. This was extensively elaborated by Der Derian (2009), arguing that the analysis of this issue has been previously overlooked by relevant literature. Placing the so-called `classical' approach towards the agenda, Der Derian (2009) particularly noted that the notion of diplomacy also implies that other related issues, including the access to resources and balance of power, are also considered while defining it, thus, not giving required prominence and detailed analysis to it. Hence, an overwhelming majority of contemporary scholars have largely criticised the theoretical strength of such definitions.

What is essential to mention here is the idea of `mediation' lying behind the notion of diplomacy. By definition, diplomacy is the process of mediation between 2 estranged sides, requiring the defense of either of a specific counterpart (Der Derian, 2009). It could consequently be argued that diplomacy has been directly connected with the phenomenon of alienation, which may be evenly applied in the analysis of the historical context, constituting the intellectual background for the research in the sphere of diplomacy.

The vagueness and ambiguity of such arguments and definitions, to a larger extent, lay in the constructivist patterns that deepen in the philosophical arguments, on which both of these counterparts heavily rely. A case in point, diplomacy, as an action, involves an exchange of norms and values among states on behalf of their representatives by demonstrating and defending their preferences and objectives, both from internal and external perspectives. This point was extensively referred by Nicolson (1961) by assuming that the nature of diplomacy can be expressed as follows: `common sense is the essence of diplomacy'. Furthermore, those so-called `common-sense' assumptions could be comprehensively analysed through the notion of Foucauldian genealogy, which, in other words, can be summarized as integrated research on the patterns of a specific subject that could be analyzed without attachment to a time period and historical frame. Additionally, from the context of international relations, discourse is mainly dependent on spatiality, in terms of forms of knowledge engaged in a wide variety of power relations and specific socio-economic conditions. A similar vision was expressed by Wight (in Jackson, 2002) who summarized the definition of diplomacy as `a statement of belief about the way international politics ought to go'. Another constructivist implementation can be found in the premise which claims diplomacy to be constitutive in the sense that it makes related social and political processes feasible (Sending et al., 2015). What is more, not only does diplomacy conflates social attitudes and public opinion on the salient agenda, but also it depends on the pre-existing social constructs, norms, and reasons, that are essential for diplomats to take into account while reaching specific decisions. This engages in the post-structuralist debate, which generally relies on the notion of language, which, in turn, lines up thought and experience.

The shadow of the constructivist approach towards the analysis of the diplomacy from the theoretical perspective may also be found in the positions defended by representatives of different schools of thought. For instance, such realists, as Waltz and Morgenthau, emphasized the notion of power, to which diplomacy is directly related. Similarly, the notion of war is also relevant to such discussion, as like it was highlighted by Sharp (2009), the condition of war commemorates the `failure of diplomacy', as this contradicts the idea of praising peaceful coexistence within the international environment, inviting the use of force to manage international relations. Another important issue worth considering is the subsequent collective action problem, encarnalized in either the existence of cooperation or its lack in the international society, assuming that it generally resembles the notion of the state of nature. Thus, under such conditions, when states and state governors are predominantly willing to pursue their dominance and the hegemonic order, cooperation and stability become less evident, allowing space for self-serving and mercenary-minded manipulations. However, solely the notions of war and power, especially its realist definition based on the coercive tactics, does not provide enough insight into the essence of diplomacy. That is why, at the same time, Sending et al. (2015) dissents the idea that diplomacy, by being a socially-driven practice, can be reduced to any systemic imperatives, thus denying the reduction of its analysis to any specific theoretical school of thought.

What may, in turn, seem helpful here is the idea of diplomatic culture developed and supported by Bull (in Constantinou, 2015), which conveyed the impact of ideas and values delivered and processed by official representatives. It may be explained by the fact that in terms of practice, the shared connection among states in the international system produces as a means of interaction. Embodied in the notion of negotiation, it requires reasonable bargaining among actors involved for the sake of mutual benefits, which in some situations pass into a bandwagoning stage. Nevertheless, in both situations, actors, namely, diplomats should stick to a certain code of conduct Scholium: Each country may propose its independent code of diplomatic conduct. For clarification in specific country-based instances, it is essential to address the following document in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs webpage. in order to satisfy the requirements of professional ethics, so that the rights and norms of each side involved would not be violated.

At the same time, the defining concept of diplomacy should be formulated based not only on the actions performed but also on the actors involved. According to Sharp (1997), the previously dominated state-to-state diplomacy has been significantly challenged by the emergence and proliferation of new actors and complimentary Scholium: By complimentary here it is meant those institutions which support and cohabit in one international environment with the dominant one. institutions. Particularly, this has a lot to do with the changing image of international relations driven by the emergence of globalization through its different stages With reference to the stages of globalization introduced by Friedman (2005). and with the applied notion of spatiality involved in the discussion, implying the ability and responsibility of a diplomat to represent at a distance (Sending et al., 2015). To develop the argument regarding spatiality, it should be noted that such deterritorialization of interstate relations simultaneously gives broad ground for analysis by blurring the borders and intersects with the personal leaders both the diplomat and head of state or government, furthermore, by granting the so-called infrastructural ground extended beyond boundaries.

As it was reinforced by Sending et al. (2015), it should be assumed that essentially the initial focus of the diplomacy is actor centric, leading to the socially constructed associations, image-based recognition, personification, and, moreover, the consequential bias from the reciprocal side of citizens towards the decisions implemented, that has to deal with the identity debate and authority by which a process of endless symbolic struggles in politics in meant. However, it is worth mentioning here that there are non-diplomatic actors, including the humanitarian organizations, who have their deputies possess the same responsibilities and conduct similar tasks as diplomats, by acting as `resident representatives' (Sending et al., 2015). Hence, this is one of the explanations of the continually altering nature of the diplomacy, but still leaving the charge of the state's performance with the external world as its primary obligation. Another issue which appears while concerning the notion of actors in diplomacy is the fact that diplomats, by acting on behalf of a specific state, remain in force with the help of a wide variety of actors in order to stay on the top of things in different spheres.

Consequently, it appears that diplomacy has been frequently surrounded by a certain extent of criticism and ambiguity, which has to deal with the personification of politics embodied in the image-based bias towards diplomats. This issue is generally expressed through the notion of authority, which is strongly interconnected with the symbolic struggles. By extension, it could be asserted in many instances that diplomacy shifts the perception of responsibility of the decision-making to diplomats, allowing sovereigns to stay as an independent force. However, it is true that sufficient attention of a diplomatic mission is paid to the state itself, its primary objectives, and priorities. According to Sending et al. (2015), this could be explained by the fact that the underlying rationale of the public international law appears to be essentially state-centric, rather than actor-centric. Relying on this logic, it is stated which contributes to the amplification of rules backed by the presence and authority of international law.

Similarly, those moral obligations and the relative significance of the issue of social trust, coming from the side of civic engagement and the role of citizens, may undermine any permutational alterations at the governmental level (Warren, 2006). This assumption becomes especially relevant in the argument proposed by Der Derian (1987), who was concerned with the way how diplomacy proclaimed from different extents of the power of `force and truth' connections, lacking sufficient precision. Hence, arguing that the weight of obligations both of state and diplomatic decisions could be a zero-sum game is not fair enough.

However, in both instances, state-based and actor-based approaches, diplomacy appears as an intermediary between the sides involved, which does not revoke its responsibilities and authority. Furthermore, it is the mediation between the acting counterparts of international society, which directly constitutes the logic of diplomacy as representation, resembling two sides of the argument here. Firstly, the way how a diplomat presents the interest of states, and secondly, how it relies on the practices implemented by other states in the global system, considering external values and objectives devoted to international relations. This is also consistent with the view of Mitzen (in Sending et al., 2015), who reports that the overall behavior of states, performed on a daily basis, may hypothetically show that the diplomatic actions reproduce it, and vice versa, allowing mutual governance within the domestic borders. Besides, in many instances of the diplomatic decision making, joint action is reasonably required, as well as universality in commitment to mutual goals, including peacekeeping, reconciliation, and maintenance of global order.

3. Philosophical analysis: auctorial hypothesis and the Foucauldian argument

3.1 Auctorial hypothesis

When describing the notion of diplomacy as a phenomenon that is closely linked to the political context, either of a specific state or a particular governor. Namely, as it was admitted and reinforced in several scholarly works on the agenda, diplomacy serves as a mediator between the ruler and those who are ruled. In this instance, diplomacy could be described as the objectification of a social contract.

Such argument may be backed by the idea that such features as estrangement and personification of political actions, combined with the authoritative decision-making process, meaning, the one which is driven by the government forces, are implied in the classical definitions of the social contract delivered in the works of Hobbes. Although Hobbes (for instance, contrary to Rousseau) does not extensively refer to the notion of alienation, it is implied in his description of the social contract (Der Derian, 2009). Along the same lines, as it was concurred by Hampton (1988), Hobbes is genuinely a supporter of an “alienation” theory in his argumentation. In this sense, people, specifically, citizens of a particular states grant their authority in the political decision-making process to a single unified governing force, the Leviathan: “there is no doubt that Hobbes considers authorization to be an act of enslavement, and the resulting commonwealth to be a union of slaves within the will of their master” Hampton, J. (1988). Hobbes and the social contract tradition. Cambridge University Press.. However, it is essential to keep in mind that the logic of Hobbes does not fully and unreservedly apply to the notion of diplomacy, especially, to its contemporary patterns. For instance, the argument concerning the condition of subjects' obedience to the sovereign is backed by a severe punishment or any other kind of disciplinary action (Russell, 1989). From this perspective, this assumption has become irrelevant nowadays due to the fallibility of morality, hence, its implication is much more flexible.

Another argument derived from the philosophical perspective may be borrowed from the logic of Kant (1785). Following this path, it may be argued that, to a certain extent, the essence of diplomacy and the practices it implies could be analyzed through the lenses of the Kantian categorical imperative, as a moral law, but in the sense that is served as a guidance for the actors involved in the international relations. “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” Kant, I. (1785). The categorical imperative.. In this case, a parallel could also be drawn with the Weberian ideal type, as a notion, encompassing specific distinctive characteristics within the framework of diplomacy.

3.2 Foucauldian argument

Regarding the philosophical interpretation of discourse analysis, this paper would predominantly be based on the Foucaldian argument. To start with, Foucault was generally perplexed with the notion of power, its nature, and behavioral patterns. However, his account of power discourse has been, to a significant part, overlooked from an IR debate on the issue, which may be expressed by the hostility of his disquisitions towards liberalism (Levin, 2010). What is essential in his argument is that power consists not only with the coercive force but also with operational characteristics derives from the language and speech as a matter of information translation and its acceleration. Relying on such assumption, state neutrality, both from the perspective of actors and institutions, is denied.

Similarly to Foucault's assumption is the speech act theory, which would be further described from an empirical part, relying on the argument proposed both by Austin and Searle (in Fish, 1976). A case in point Austin (in Fish, 1976) also makes an instance on the individual side of the argument. Speech act theory could be defined as authoritative actions in terms of their direct dependency on the state executives and amounts of power they possess.

Consequently, by taking into consideration the aforementioned pattern, the image of power embedded in the speech may occur in the clash with the freedom of expression, linked, in turn, to the so-called “silencing and subordination”: counterpart, overlayed on the side of citizens (Levin, 2010). Such a position could be linked to the Butler's Butler, J. (1997). Excitable speech: A politics of the performative. Psychology Press. arguments on the idea that “power is translated through discourse rather than through individuals” (Hey, 2006), therefore, depicting the limitations of the perspective of the “executive-subordinate” dichotomy.

Returning to the idea proposed by Foucault (1980) in terms of power-relational argumentation of discourse, he assumed it to be a “productive force” of any research subject, by resting upon the hierarchical power operationalization through the cognominal discourse Scholium: By hierarchy here is meant the executive and governing hierarchy in politics.. Furthermore, he extensively emphasized that discourse creates truth and vice versa. As a consequence, the burden of information related to this argument could be explained through the Foucauldian notion of “genealogy” dealing with the antagonistic and restrained effects of power. By this view, Foucault and his supporters generally asserted that previously existing discourse approaches failed to account for existing power distribution on a global scale. Generally, it looks at the way how discourse is produced to manage social groups. Another point worth mentioning here is the notion of empathy, which is connected with the object matter of this work, namely, diplomacy. To put it bluntly, the phenomenon of empathy has a lot to deal with the representation feature of diplomacy in terms of social constructivism. The empathetic participation, forming the society from the perspective of the observer, is directly related to the impact of perception in the political discourse and its analysis, thus, creating social interpretation with the analyzed political process.

As a result, it has to deal with the paradigm of historical memory, maintained and preserved through the discoursive characteristics of various events, personalities, publications. The other side of this theoretical debate here is that not only the executive part of the discourse argument may be applied and concerned but also the local-authority level, depicting much lesser coverage of the agenda, being still relevant in terms of its relation to the circulation of power.

Nevertheless, in any instance of such discoursive claims and patterns, it is both dependent on the human factor of its object and subject, on the one hand, and the state-proliferated rules and conditions, on the other. In the latter sense, the argument of Butler (1997) concerning state speech in the discoursive regulation is also applied to describe power attached to diplomacy.

4. Setting the historical context

Depending on different historical stages and time frames, bilateral diplomatic relations between Russia and the US have gone through different phases. This can be explained by different intentions and desirable outcomes for the distinctive actors involved in this bilateral relationship. For the presented work, this section will be organized chronologically with the aim to analyze and structure the key events held during the time periods selected and their impact on the subject and object of the described research.

From the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, relations between Russia and the US noticeably improved under the administration of Boris Yeltsin and George H. W. Bush. A similar pattern of bilateral relations followed during Bill Clinton's presidency. Notwithstanding, by the end of the 1990s, Moscow became doubtful of the US's foreign policy objectives, especially in terms of its desire for dominance and acquisition to the prevailing power on a global scale.

Various explanations could be given when it comes to the description of the nature of bilateral diplomatic relations between Russia and the US. As it was apparently assumed by Rumer (2004), by the 1990s, the US efforts in the former Soviet territories was more a reconciliation of the desire for global dominance, a unipolar world under the US's guidance, seemed relatively feasible, essentially, taking into consideration the existing inherent tendency towards the global war contra terrorism and struggle for maintaining global peace and security. Admittedly, the geopolitical and geoeconomic side of the debate also impacted the development of the reciprocity between two states. Rumer (2004) emphasized that the range of problems related to bilateral diplomacy was territorially confined to the periphery of Russia, which had to deal with the US's increased military presence. Additionally, this relatively peaceful coexistence may be explained by the fact that during this period of time, Russia did not pose any serious threat (or at least such threat was not that substantive and discernible to impose any action to counter it), due to existing domestic conflicts, including lack of trust among citizens, the rise of opposition movements, and economic crisis.

As was described by Rumer (2004), from the early 2000s, American involvement in Russian affairs has reached an unprecedented extent. Among the number of remarkable events impacting this period as a case in point, the relations between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Bill Clinton can be highlighted. To illustrate this, it is crucial to address several particular events, including participation in Moscow Summit, in June 2000, during which Clinton visited Moscow and discussed with newly elected Putin the joint principles of strategic stability and the possibility of cooperation on the wide range of issues. The same applies to the event of President Clinton addressed Russian Parliament (which was the first and the only time). The latter remark has to deal with the role of personalities, with the concerns over the personal contributions transferred into the language, behavioral patterns imposed into the speech, and the effect it produced, which could be approached using the speech act theory. This may be expressed by the argumentation developed by Grice (1957) and backed by the argument of the notion of the “meaning” itself. What is essential for the purpose of this work is the term of “natural meaning”, the distinction between the sense of the word and the sense of its context attributes as “non-natural meaning”, namely, the one given to a word by a speaker, thus, producing cognitive effects embodied in the reflective communicative intention. Additionally, the meeting during the G8 Summit in July 2000 as well as the joint Clinton and Putin's meeting during the UN Millennium Summit showed progress in the reinforcement of strategic stability, embodied into the discussion on the Strategic Stability Cooperation Initiative, thus engaging a more active cooperation between two states on the salient agenda. The same applies to the mutual decision of two states on the creation of the new agreement on strategic nuclear weapons reduction.

During the year 2003, things drastically changed: the reason for that became the growing misconcerns and disagreements over such issues like Iraq and Chechnya, intensified and enforced by the inauguration of President George W. Bush (Rumer, 2004). The overall situation was worsened by the attitudes towards the domestic policies in Russia that were described by West as an authoritarian rule and, more importantly, the so-called oligarchic selectiveness, contradicting liberal democratic values and norms. Indeed, according to Wiseman (2005), the US has executed a fairly deep “state-based diplomatic culture” both defending and spreading its own political culture and identity, which, in some instances, was interpreted as pervasive. Furthermore, the attitudes of the Bush's proponents, criticizing Clinton's era as being “the time of appeasement”, combined with the neoconservative arguments, stressing the growing blind spot between two states as well.

To a large extent, this may be explained by the noticeable differences in the approaches and images of a nation-state and its sovereignty in two states, prescribing various norms and behavioral rules in politics (Shinoda, 1998). A similar vision prescribes when it comes to the description of the discrepancies in the political culture. This may be addressed by the changes brought by the process of globalization (Rana, 2018), which intensified the interdependence among states compounded by the intensified dialogue and cooperation on spreading salient agenda. Corresponding features could be described from the constructivist approach, presumably relying on the Wendt's (1992) assumptions on the state's self-identity, which determines the state, as an actor, is perceived by others in the international system. Besides, as states will change and transform, consequently, their image also alters. What is more, constructivism also reinforces the proposition that states might experience different outcomes under the same international environment, and, thus, pursue decision-making differently, due to the assumption that there are no strict and constant cause-and-effect explanations. To put it bluntly, Wendt (1992) concurs that it is not required to “treat interests and identity as given”.

Generally, the debate over the state's strategic interests has to deal with the power distribution, authority, and, hence, polarity. As it was highlighted by Ikenberry et al. (2008), “American primacy over the global distribution of capabilities is among the most salient issues of the contemporary international system”. This position was also supported by those scholars arguing that the US currently can be described as the dominant power in the contemporary international arena. A case in point can be applied to the position of the Wohlforth (1999) asserting that yet there is no power to challenge the military dominance of the US.

Controversies between two states toughly reinforced between the years 2007-2008, backed not only by the economic crisis but also by specific intergovernmental disagreements. General polemic lied on the US's decision to develop an anti-ballistic missile defense installation located in Poland, by arguing that this would be beneficial for both the US and Europe in terms of the preservation of security. However, Russia did not assess such intentions as safe and secure for its internal politics and tested the RS-24 in response. Hence, no consensus on mutually beneficial actions in this agenda was reached among Russia and the US. Another concern became the decision of Russia to participate in the aid distribution to Iraq under its nuclear power programme. Tensions increased when Russia stated that in the case of the chance that the US against rocket shield was sent close to the Russian fringe, it would need to respond using military intervention. The situation got worse with the Russian-Georgian clash that happened in August 2008.

A certain extent of the bilateral restitution of relations between Russia and the US emerged after 2009, under the presidencies of Dmitry Medvedev and Barak Obama, respectively. An important event here was the G-20 Summit in London, where two sides proposed a “new beginning” of diplomacy between states. At this point, Russia was starting to intensify its economic cooperation by de jure joining the WTO after a long time of negotiations.

Nevertheless, such peaceful coexisting did not last long, despite mutual decision on the demolishment of chemical weapons in Syria (2013) and the confinement of an agreement of Iran's nuclear programme (2015). The misunderstanding and lack of interstate trust were accelerated by Edward Snowden affair in 2013, under which Russia granted political asylum after his illegal release of secret US's evidential matters. Another tension catalyst was the Ukraine crisis and the incorporation of Crimea in 2014. This was also supported by Russia's decision to ensure cooperation with the Asian side, namely, by signing a deal with China National Petroleum Corporation on gas supply, which was happening in parallel with a resolution to stop the one to Ukraine during the period of continuing instability. The continuing war in Syria (2015) and active Russian participation there added fuel to the general dissatisfaction of the international community to the Russian foreign policy. The situation worsened in 2016 when Russia was accused of conducting cyberattacks on the US presidential campaign, while mutual accusations on various issues immediately followed from both sides, after which the US imposed economic sanctions against Russia. The EU pursued a similar approach during 2016-2017. Nevertheless, this did not bring the desired outcome to the side of initiators.