This text is the second in a two half collection. Learn the primary piece here.

Worry shouldn’t be the primary emotion that involves thoughts when serious about leaders like Vladimir Putin. Anger, defiance, or contempt – these are extra prefer it. There are neuropsychological and semantic causes for that: some feelings ‘need’ to be expressed. Anger, for instance, fulfils an necessary perform in speaking {that a} purple line has been crossed (van Kleef et al. 2008: 16f). A deeper look into modern affective science suggests that each one feelings have physiological manifestations. Particular ‘microexpressions,’ for examples – contractions of facial muscle tissue that final for only a cut up second – that can not be suppressed or hid (Ekman 2003: 15). Analogously, so-called appraisal theories of emotion suggest that physiological ‘activation’ precedes cognitive appraisal of a state of affairs (Lazarus 1991; Tomaka et al. 1997: 63). Even when sociocultural norms, identities, or values ought to put constraints on the person’s behaviour, feelings typically override them (Turner 2009: 341). These observations also needs to apply to political operatives, together with the Russian chief.

In a contribution to E-Worldwide Relations in November 2020 I argued that we’d use emotion as a conceptual device in international coverage evaluation. Specializing in worry, the piece steered that human emotion presents us with a phenomenon that has been comprehensively studied throughout psychology, linguistics, and neuroscience and that it’s, to an extent, generalisable. It would due to this fact provide us some analytical leverage and a solution to work out a number of the thornier epistemological and methodological points dealing with the self-discipline: the talk over the primacy of construction or company, bridging the hole between idea and apply, or the seemingly unavoidable selection of a degree of study. This text, centred once more on the emotion of worry, probes the plausibility of a number of the theoretical factors made beforehand by making use of it to episodes in Russian-Western relations.

It was an evaluation of the educational literature on Russian international coverage that triggered my curiosity in psychological explanations within the first place. Prevailing theoretical paradigms have a blended observe report in guiding the evaluation of Russian international coverage, not to mention producing predictions of future coverage strikes. A telling instance, when surveyed in late February 2014, solely 13.9% of IR students thought that Russia would intervene militarily in response to the political disaster in Ukraine, whereas greater than half dominated out that chance (Maliniak et al. 2014). There’s, nonetheless, a large spectrum of opinion. Some social constructivists recommend that Russia’s assertive flip is the product of a technique of id formation in relation to Europe (e.g. Neumann 2016; Tsygankov 2016). Evaluation knowledgeable by liberal idea traces Russian international coverage again to authoritative tendencies in home politics (e.g. Lynch 2016; McFaul 2018). On account of the anomaly of the time period, reference should be made to a abstract of what ‘liberalism’ refers to within the context of international coverage evaluation (see Doyle 2012). Structural realism, alternatively, continues to stress that Russian behaviour is the inevitable results of defective, ideologically pushed Western coverage (e.g. Mearsheimer 2014). Coverage prescriptions drawing on these analyses range accordingly.

These theories endure from some deficiencies with respect to modelling the behaviour of particular person decision-makers within the social context. Structural realism and liberalism depend on the rational actor assumption, whereas a lot of the constructivist scholarship, emphasising the intersubjective nature of the social world, provides no distinct idea of particular person actorhood. Each rationalist and constructivist fashions depend on a conventional, ‘cognitivist’ outlook, i.e. they give attention to elements that may be ‘identified’ and ‘understood,’ which doesn’t replicate the cutting-edge in determination science. These shortcomings however, the query that emerged in my analysis is whether or not we’re lacking one thing in learning patterns of change and continuity in Russian-Western relations, and extra usually, in analysing states’ international insurance policies. Had been students making ok use of all of the explanatory instruments out there?

The broader motion in IR selling re-engagement with human nature and a give attention to affective phenomena, of which my work is an element, ought to due to this fact not be mistaken for an effort to disprove rationalist or constructivist fashions. In truth, in lots of situations, affective science corroborates the assumptions made by different theories. The target is to showcase the usefulness of emotion as a lens on international coverage, connecting materials capabilities, governing constructions, concepts, and the person. Within the spirit of Graham Allison’s insightful research of the Cuban Missile Disaster, the primary goal of ‘conceptual lenses’ is to check and distinction. By doing that, he steered, ‘we see what every magnifies, highlights, and divulges in addition to what every blurs or neglects’ (Allison 1971: v).

Some affective phenomena already function prominently within the area of international coverage evaluation. Educational curiosity in Russia’s (in addition to China’s) standing considerations, particularly Russian responses to perceived disrespect or denial of its nice energy standing, has been rising steadily (e.g. Larson and Shevchenko 2010; Forsberg 2014; Tsygankov 2014). In worldwide politics, standing is extra than simply good to have. As ‘popularity for energy,’ standing makes states safer and allows them to attain their goals with out having to resort to drive (Gilpin 1981: 31). Historic nice energy standing may additionally additional the ruling elite’s home goals by offering an idea round which to construct nationwide id and strengthen group ties. The prototypical response to a denial of standing, i.e. not recognizing one other’s rightful place within the social hierarchy, is a few type of anger. It might be argued, due to this fact, that the literature on standing considerations is constructed round psychological claims regarding social id, perceptions of ‘unfair’ therapy, and anger. On this context, anger, defiance, or outrage needs to be understood as extra than simply an automatic, primitive response however because the affective part of an try to revive standing. The purpose right here is that international coverage evaluation staked on standing considerations usually doesn’t make the connections between the idea of standing and affective expertise express. Partaking extra totally with the psychology of standing looking for (and denial) in addition to the experiential by-products of anger ought to allow us to hypothesise below what circumstances sure considerations, similar to safety, navy would possibly, territory, standing, or values matter, and when one concern issues greater than one other.

The identical may be mentioned for worry. Regardless of its foundational place within the IR literature, the phenomenon has been studied predominantly inside rationalist frameworks of deterrence, bargaining, or strategic selection. The methods by which the subjective expertise of worry or loss aversion influence determination makers on a private degree has obtained comparatively much less consideration. If some occasions in worldwide politics are based mostly on psychological processes, as appears to be an assumption underlying all of our conventional IR theories (if solely implicitly), it stands to motive that the mechanisms by which these phenomena unfold ought to obtain extra consideration.

A staple class in explanations of Russian-Western relations is the previous’s worry of encirclement. It rests on each social and psychological elements. Via a technique of socialisation, the historic precedent of a number of land invasions has implanted a way of insecurity in Russians. Partly, this has been, and continues to be bolstered by the scale of the nation and the related problem of defending its huge borders. In his idea of ‘affective geopolitics,’ Gerald Toal argues that whereas the scale of Russia’s territory already induced a ‘sense of vulnerability,’ it ‘has been accompanied by discourses about plots and encirclement schemes by historic enemies, portraying Russia as a besieged fortress.’ Schooling, tradition, faith, state holidays and rituals have created ‘the nation-state as an embodied situation’ (Toal 2017: 46-47). In different phrases, many Russians deeply care in regards to the safety and integrity of the motherland in ways in which appear unfamiliar to Western observers.

There isn’t a motive to imagine this deep-seated concern doesn’t prolong to the state’s elites. As Neil MacFarlane (2016: 351) suggests:

Putin and his colleagues within the Soviet safety equipment have been acculturated into this notion of isolation, hostility, and menace of their early life. That formation might have an effect on the cognitive framing of their present state of affairs. In different phrases, regardless of the potential instrumental worth of their rhetoric, they might additionally imagine what they are saying in regards to the menace from the West.

To this finish, deeper engagement with how worry of encirclement is being perceived by leaders, and the sorts of affective motion tendencies this would possibly promote, could also be instructive. A few of the potential penalties of worry are mentioned in my earlier article. Amongst them, ‘the fearful’ have a better tendency to determine future threats (together with ones that don’t exist) and they’re worse at calculating the prices and dangers of their decisions. As a consequence, they may behave in a method that – even when supposed as defensive – is seen as threatening by others.

Whichever anxieties Russian elites might need already had have been exacerbated by the slide of the nation into chaos and corruption all through the Nineties, and related emotions of powerlessness vis-à-vis a affluent and confident West. Particularly the choice of the US and its European companions to take navy motion in opposition to Yugoslavia in 1999, regardless of vocal protest from Moscow, marks an important turning level in relations. To this present day, the NATO bombing marketing campaign is used for example of US hegemonic ambitions, pursued exterior the frequent framework of worldwide legislation, within the guise of humanitarian intervention. It challenged the post-Chilly Struggle function Russian coverage makers foresaw for the UNSC amongst worldwide establishments however extra importantly, their self-image. Aside from the humiliation, Russians agreed that NATO intervention set a harmful precedent. Among the many elite, it implanted fears of Western-backed insurgencies within the ‘close to overseas’ and destabilisation in Russia’s personal peripheral areas. The ensuing defiant perspective helped in formulating a standard imaginative and prescient of a Russian Federation that ought to restore its rightful standing as an amazing energy.

One Russian observer remarked that NATO had bombed not simply Serbia, but in addition the UN and post-Chilly Struggle Europe, ‘as an thought, as a political and civilizational undertaking’. For a lot of, ‘Gorbachev’s crystal dream of a “frequent European dwelling” lay in items’ (Grachev 2009). Such swan music for Russian designs of a rules-based worldwide order might need masked a deeper, civilizational shift that started across the identical time. Up till the flip of the century, Europe was generally seen as ‘the primary observe of civilization’ (Putin 1999) – a mannequin to emulate. ‘We’re part of the Western European tradition. Irrespective of the place our folks stay, within the Far East or within the south, we’re Europeans,’ the brand new president proclaimed in a speech earlier than the German Bundestag (Putin 2000: 169).

By the mid-2000s, views relating to Europe had modified significantly. Speak of a ‘frequent European dwelling’ had given solution to representations of Europe as one thing ‘different,’ ‘false,’ and even ‘rotten’ (Neumann 2016: 1392). It should be talked about that such representations didn’t come up out of nothing. Russian conceptions of Europe and ‘Western’ patterns of human growth had developed and shifted over centuries (see Greenfeld 1992: 267; MacFarlane 1994). Whether or not it was being seen positively or negatively, Europe has all the time been central to the Russian self-image and the psychological, ideational, and normative elements of that relationship. The idea of Europe, MacFarlane argues, ‘occupies a psychological, in addition to an institutional and geographical, area’ and encompasses evolving views relating to ‘European’ concepts and norms (MacFarlane 1994: 237). Put otherwise, ideas of Russia and Europe are interdependent. Or, as Andrei Tsygankov places it: ‘the “self’s” evaluation of the “different” is topic to variations, relying on the “different’s” willingness to simply accept the “self’s” affect’ (Tsygankov 2018: 103).

This (re-)definition of the ‘self’ in relation to Europe helps clarify the downturn in Russian-Western relations from the mid-2000s onwards. Relying on whether or not the ‘self’ (Russia) and its affect is recognised or denied by the ‘different’ (Europe and the West), it could generate both hope or resentment and the notion of menace (Tsygankov 2018: 103). This has essential implications on whether or not the ‘self’ will probably be primed towards benevolence or spite – cooperation or appearing as a spoiler. In keeping with Tsygankov, this emotional evolution from worry to hope to frustration has been a recurring sample in Russian-Western relations because the 19th century:

Hope ceaselessly became frustration with what Russia noticed as the opposite aspect’s unwillingness to reciprocate and, finally, distrust and worry that the Western nations certainly purpose to undermine Russia’s sovereignty and safety. Sustained worry and distrust on events became anger and anger-shaped insurance policies of abandoning cooperative initiatives and adopting patterns of defensive or assertive behaviour (Tsygankov 2014: 346).

Jack Barbalet, who studied the emotional results of differentially distributed ranges of energy and status, argues that when an ‘different’ turns into just too highly effective for one’s personal aspect to understand their pursuits, anger and resentment are sometimes accompanied by worry (Barbalet 1998: 133). In distinction to a situation the place an absence of energy is seen as one’s personal failing and worry results in a flight response or social withdrawal, when the opposite aspect is blamed for one’s powerlessness, worry happens collectively with resentment and the response is more likely to be of the ‘combating’ form. ‘Such perceptions,’ Turner writes, ‘could also be mobilized by ideologies or come up spontaneously, however in both case, very intense feelings like vengefulness are aroused, and these are the feelings of violence’ (Turner 2009: 350).

In the direction of the tip of Putin’s second time period, these feelings have been on full show. Most famously, when he launched a verbal tirade in opposition to US unipolarity on the 2007 Munich Safety Convention: ‘(…) the US, has overstepped its nationwide borders in each method. That is seen within the financial, political, cultural and academic insurance policies it imposes on different nations. (…) It ends in the truth that nobody feels protected. I need to emphasise this – nobody feels protected!’ In August of the next 12 months, Russia’s assertiveness manifested itself in plain phrases. Putin responded with overwhelming drive to a Georgian assault on the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali, crippling the Georgian navy in all however 5 days. Russian actions imposed a heavy toll on civilians, too, and have been met with vehement criticism from the Western world.

The subjective hierarchy of considerations can be utilized to clarify why Russian selections within the early stage of the battle didn’t appear to think about potential repercussions of ‘disproportionate’ motion in opposition to Georgia. These included, for instance, the specter of sanctions, capital flight, the elevated intractability of the battle the longer it could final, and the humiliation dealt by the refusal of even some CIS states to recognise the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The affective depth of officers’ worry and outrage outweighed such potential penalties of taking motion. As these penalties grew to become tougher to keep away from, their influence on coverage appreciated. By recognising that Russian conduct throughout the August Struggle was closely affectively charged, we will sq. the dimensions and depth of the preliminary invasion with the choice, simply 5 days later, to desist from pushing on to Tbilisi and forcing the Georgian president from energy.

In 2013, Ukraine’s transfer to conclude (and later refuse to signal) an Affiliation Settlement with the EU set in movement one other collection of fateful occasions, culminating within the annexation of Crimea in late March 2014. In marked distinction to the majority of Western skilled opinion and media protection, notable IR theorist John Mearsheimer blamed the West for the disaster as a result of it had fallen prey to ‘liberal delusions’ and ignored the political actuality of simply how necessary sustaining management over its borderlands was to Russian elites (Mearsheimer 2014). No matter how one evaluates Mearsheimer’s argument, his structural realist tackle Ukraine highlights the function of worry in lots of our classical frameworks of IR idea which can be utilized to check instances in worldwide politics.

Realism usually describes politics as decided by the anarchical construction of the worldwide system (structural realism) or the lust for energy inherent in human nature (classical realism). Nevertheless, realist politics may additionally be traced to worry. When seen by the prism of worry, the pursuit of energy shouldn’t be an finish in itself however a necessary survival technique. Classical realists acknowledged this fairly clearly: ‘energy struggles are seen as emanating both from the animus dominandi of human nature or from worry, or from a mixture of the 2’ (Neumann and Sending 2010: 685). Structural realists, too, regardless of their emphasis on the stability of energy between states, make psychological assumptions; the speculation’s state-centrism merely disguises its ontological foundations in human nature (Freyberg-Inan 2004: 3; Johnson and Thayer 2016).

Russian international coverage evaluation knowledgeable by ‘liberal’ idea has tended to be diametrically against structural realist conclusions. Whereas the time period doesn’t denote the identical, uniform clarification throughout instances, liberal accounts typically assume the same, Western-centric vantage level. Ranging from this normatively charged place, Russian international coverage typically serves as an inverse template, a ‘darkish double’ of US international coverage (Foglesong 2007: 11). As a consequence, liberal explanations of Russian behaviour typically dovetail with the official US international coverage line. Evidently, when coverage prescriptions precede evaluation, explanations of state conduct are considerably constrained. Moreover, a liberal place would possibly blind the analyst to seeing how the influence of the insurance policies of 1’s ‘personal’ aspect are being perceived. For instance, why it’s that NATO enlargement, recognising Kosovo’s independence, or the development of a missile defence system in Europe are met with such fierce rejection by Russian officers are necessary questions in and of themselves which can be typically left unaddressed.

Such questions are tougher than they appear. The argument that Russia needs to be afraid of NATO, for instance, shouldn’t be supported by an evaluation of ‘exhausting,’ i.e. primarily military-related, safety elements. Within the early Nineties, Russia seen NATO as a relic of the Chilly Struggle, now devoid of a goal. Its plans for enlargement have been misguided, pushed by organisational inertia, however posed no actual menace (Patrushev 2005). Even after the newest part of enlargement, experts steered that NATO presence on the Russian border quantities to extra of a ‘velocity bump’ than credible deterrence. Why, then, do Russian leaders maintain referring to the alliance because the primary menace to nationwide safety? The reply must be sociopsychological: NATO’s goal has come to be seen as mounting a perennial assault on Russian tradition and values. The menace posed by the alliance is thus not being perceived as a navy however primarily a psychological or ontological one.

The ‘affective’ lens primes the analyst to be delicate to those nuances in leaders’ notion and motivation. Neither the Russian-Georgian battle nor its incursion into Ukraine may be immediately ascribed to an affective response, and even seen as the results of the worsening of relations between Russia, Europe, and the US. Nevertheless, the emergence of an embedded, virtually institutionalised, contemptuous perspective in direction of the West certainly lowered the edge and aided Russian elites within the technique of rationalisation and ex-post justification of decided motion.

Niccolò Machiavelli, in his treatise on management written for Lorenzo de’ Medici, steered {that a} prince (or a state chief) ought to have two fears: ‘one inner, regarding his topics; the opposite exterior, regarding international powers. From the latter, he can defend himself by his efficient arms and his efficient allies. (…) regarding his topics, when exterior affairs don’t change, he has to worry that they might be plotting in secret. The prince will shield himself in opposition to this hazard by avoiding being both hated or despised and by protecting the folks glad with him’ (Machiavelli and Bondanella 2005: 63-64).

In different phrases, the 2 fears of the prince are international invasion and widespread rebellion. For the reason that late Nineties, Russian leaders have been fairly vocal about each sorts of worry, together with frequent references to Western-backed insurgencies within the ‘close to overseas’ and even Russia itself. In their very own expertise, the threats they reacted to might need been of a unique form, although. Relatively than a navy invasion, elites could also be extra delicate to challenges to a system of presidency they’ve constructed, undoubtedly with exhausting work, which supplies for his or her livelihood and bodily well-being. Russian officers have steered as a lot by expressing their aversion to democratisation and regime change – although such references are fewer than warnings of Western incursion utilizing a safety vernacular. ‘Since 2004, Putin and his colleagues have taken the democratization of neighbouring nations, notably Ukraine, to be a compelling menace, not a lot to Russia, however to the construction of energy and revenue he and his colleagues have tried to construct in Russia’ (MacFarlane 2016: 351-52).

It’s potential that Putin and people round him evoke worry of encirclement to self-rationalise different, extra existential anxieties. Mark Galeotti (2016) argues that, ‘to many in and near the Kremlin, Russia faces an actual menace, not borne by tanks and missiles however cultural influences, financial stress, and political penetration. That is, of their eyes, a civilizational menace aimed toward making Russia a homogenized, neutered, subaltern state.’ On the core of this civilizational menace lies the centrality of individualism and political competitors in Western societies which is pitted in opposition to collectivist wishes for stability and concentrated authority in Russian tradition (Tsygankov 2018: 102). The encirclement narrative is thus carefully related to at least one’s self-identification as ‘superior’ by a technique of affective change. As Alexander Motyl (2014) observes, ‘the prevalence of Russia and Russian civilization are nonetheless carefully held values, as is the assumption that the West is hostile and that the nation wants a robust chief, Putin, to say Russia’s greatness and fight Western affect.’

Going ahead, Putin should face a easy actuality: with each extra month in workplace, he has extra to lose and fewer methods out. It has additionally been documented that long-standing leaders like him are vulnerable to psychopathologies like detachment, hubris, or worry of persecution (see Robertson 2015). For Putin, who is definitely satisfied that the prosperity and safety of Russia rely upon him, it isn’t simply his political legacy that’s at stake. Extra viscerally, the success of his insurance policies, the course of the nation, and the query of his succession have direct implications on his monetary and bodily safety. All of this raises the stakes within the notion of the chief significantly and supplies fertile floor for high-intensity affective responses.


Allison, Graham T. 1971. Essence of determination: explaining the Cuban missile disaster (Little, Brown: Boston).

Averre, Derek. 2009. ‘From Pristina to Tskhinvali: the legacy of Operation Allied Power in Russia’s relations with the West’, Worldwide Affairs, 85: 575-91.

Barbalet, J. M. 1998. Emotion, social idea, and social construction: a macrosociological strategy (Cambridge College Press: Cambridge).

Doyle, Michael W. 2012. ‘Liberalism and Overseas Coverage.’ in Steve Smith, Amelia Hadfield and Timothy Dunne (eds.), Overseas coverage: theories, actors, instances (Oxford College Press: Oxford).

Ekman, Paul. 2003. Feelings revealed: understanding faces and emotions (Weidenfeld & Nicolson: London).

Foglesong, David S. 2007. The American mission and the ‘Evil Empire:’ the campaign for a ‘Free Russia’ since 1881 (Cambridge College Press: New York).

Forsberg, Tuomas. 2014. ‘Standing conflicts between Russia and the West: Perceptions and emotional biases’, Communist and Put up-Communist Research, 47: 323-31.

Freyberg-Inan, Annette. 2004. What strikes man: the realist idea of worldwide relations and its judgment of human nature (State College of New York Press: Albany).

Gilpin, Robert. 1981. Struggle and alter in world politics (Cambridge College Press: Cambridge).

Grachev, Andrei. 1999. ‘UN Hit by NATO Strikes,’ Moskovskie novosti 20-26 April, cited in: Averre 2009: 575.

Greenfeld, Liah. 1992. Nationalism: 5 roads to modernity (Harvard College Press: Cambridge, MA; London).

Johnson, Dominic, and Bradley Thayer. 2016. ‘The evolution of offensive realism’, Politics and the Life Sciences, 35: 1-26.

Larson, Deborah Welch, and Alexei Shevchenko. 2010. ‘Standing Seekers: Chinese language and Russian Responses to U.S. Primacy’, Worldwide Safety, 34: 63-95.

Lazarus, Richard S. 1991. Emotion and adaptation (Oxford College Press: New York; Oxford).

Lynch, Allen C. 2016. ‘The affect of regime sort on Russian international coverage in direction of the West 1992–2015’, Communist and Put up-Communist Research, 49: 101-11.

MacFarlane, S. Neil. 1994. ‘Russian Conceptions of Europe’, Put up-Soviet Affairs, 10: 234-69.

———. 2016. ‘Kto Vinovat? Why is there a disaster in Russia’s relations with the West?’, Modern Politics, 22: 342-58.

Machiavelli, Niccolò, and Peter E. Bondanella. 2005. The prince (Oxford College Press: Oxford).

McFaul, Michael. 2018. From Chilly Struggle to sizzling peace: the within story of Russia and America (Allen Lane: London).

Mearsheimer, John. 2014. ‘Why the Ukraine Disaster Is the West’s Fault: The Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin’, Overseas Affairs, 93: 77-89.

Neumann, Iver B. 2016. ‘Russia’s Europe, 1991–2016: inferiority to superiority’, Worldwide Affairs, 92: 1381-99.

Neumann, Iver B., and Ole Jacob Sending. 2010. Governing the worldwide polity: apply, mentality, rationality (College of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor).

Patrushev, Nikolai. 2005. ‘Vyzov Prinyat,’ Rossiyskaya Gazeta, 22 December, cited in: Tsygankov 2018: 102.

Putin, Vladimir V. 2000. First Individual: An Astonishingly Frank Self-Portrait by Russia’s President (New York, NY: Public Affairs).

Toal, Gerard. 2017. Close to overseas: Putin, the West, and the competition over Ukraine and the Caucasus (Oxford College Press: New York).

Tomaka, Joe, Jim Blascovich, Jeffrey Kibler, and John Ernst. 1997. ‘Cognitive and physiological antecedents of menace and problem appraisal’, Journal of persona and social psychology, 73: 63-72.

Tsygankov, Andrei P. 2014. ‘The irritating partnership: Honor, standing, and feelings in Russia’s discourses of the West’, Communist and Put up-Communist Research, 47: 345-54.

———. 2016. Russia’s international coverage: change and continuity in nationwide id (Rowman and Littlefield Publishers: Lanham).

———. 2018. ‘The sources of Russia’s worry of NATO’, Communist and Put up-Communist Research, 51: 101-11.

Turner, Jonathan H. 2009. ‘The Sociology of Feelings: Primary Theoretical Arguments’, Emotion Overview, 1: 340-54.

van Kleef, Gerben A., E. van Dijk, W. Steinel, F. Harinck, and I. van Beest. 2008. ‘Anger in social battle: Cross-situational comparisons and solutions for the longer term’, Group Resolution and Negotiation, 17: 13-30.

Additional Studying on E-Worldwide Relations