Multi-vector Approach in the Foreign Policy of the Post-Soviet Countries: Current Issues and Trends

Multi-vectorism as a principle of foreign policy has been implemented by the CIS countries since the mid-1990s. Over 30 years, experience has been accumulated that allows us to judge the basis of real policy and multi-vectorism as a discourse in the information field. The attitude towards multi-vectorism in the foreign policy of the post-Soviet countries is very different, ranging from purely positive (mainly from the country’s political experts) to extremely skeptical (the Russian political science school). The article presents the results of the expert session of the Center for Research of International Humanitarian Communications of the Patrice Lumumba RUDN University “Multi-vectorism in Foreign Policy: Current Problems”, which took place on October 8, 2024 and discussed the problems of multi-vectorism: what are the limits of multi-vectorism as a means of maneuvering of post-Soviet political elites in the context of the emerging multipolar model of international relations, are common rules of the game possible for countries of different economic importance, what is the significance of situational alliances and temporary coalitions in the context of multi-vectorism. Based on the results of the discussion, the researchers came to the conclusion that multi-vectorism is an effective tactical resource of major playersmoderators, leaders of integration associations and military blocs, used to achieve strategic objectives in the areas of memorial policy, macro-regional security, humanitarian and economic cooperation. With such a balance of forces, middle-level countries risk becoming led and controlled objects of foreign policy ambitions of third countries.

1. Akaev A. A new understanding of Eurasianism. Sovremennaya Evropa [Modern Europe]. 2001; 1(5):7–13 [In Russian].

2. Bolshakov A.G. The multi-vector nature of Kyrgyzstan’s foreign policy in the context of changing conflict in the post-Soviet space. Politicheskaya ekspertiza: POLITEX [Political expertise: POLITEX]. 2010; 2(6):99–115 [In Russian].

3. Galoyan N.G. Formation of the foreign policy principles of Armenia and Georgia after the collapse of the USSR. Postsovetskie issledovaniya [Рost-Soviet studies]. 2018; 1(1):94–106 [In Russian].

4. Degterev D.A., Vasilyuk I.P., Baum V.V. Multiplexity Parameters of the CIS Policy: Applied Analysis. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya [World economy and international relations]. 2018; 62(3):63–75 [In Russian]. https://doi.org/10.20542/0131-2227-2018-62-1-63-75.

5. Dobrenkov V.I. Globalization of Spirituality. Moscow: Academicheskiy Proekt, 2019:589 [In Russian].

6. Krylov S.A. 50 years of the Non-Aligned Movement: results and prospects. Vestnik MGIMO Universiteta. Politologicheskie nauki [Bulletin of MGIMO University. Political science]. 2012; 3:17– 25 [In Russian].

7. Makarevich E.F., Karpushin O.I. The Culture of the Information Society: Confrontation of Traditions and Postmodernism. Gorizonty gumanitarnogo znaniya [Horizons of Humanitarian Knowledge]. 2020; 3:12–20 [In Russian].

8. Malysheva D.B. The European Union in Central Asia. Rossiya i novye gosudarstva Evrazii [Russia and the New States of Eurasia]. 2018; 2:54–63 [In Russian].

9. Mezhevich N.M., Shimov V.V. The Concept of Multi-Vectorality in the System of Foreign Policy Practices of an “Average Country” (on the Example of Belarus). Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya [Bulletin of St. Petersburg University. International Relations]. 2022; 15(4):436–450 [In Russian]. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu06.2022.406.

10. Mirumyan R.A. The Armenian model of national enlightenment (education and upbringing) as a mechanism for preserving the cultural identity of the nation. from paganism to the early Middle Ages (political and philosophical aspect). Vestnik Rossijsko-Armyanskogo (Slavyanskogo) universiteta (seriya: gumanitarnye i obshchestvennye nauki) [Bulletin of the Russian-Armenian (Slavic) University (series: humanitarian and social sciences)]. 2024; 2:13–42 [In Russian].

11. Neumann von J., Morgenstern O. Theory of games and economic behavior / Translated from English by N.N. Vorobyova. Moscow: Nauka, 1976 [In Russian].

12. Skriba A.S. Balancing small and medium-sized states. Mezhdunarodnye processy [International processes]. 2014; 12(4):88–100 [In Russian].

13. Spirina M.Yu. Traditional values and Eurasian culture. Evrazijstvo: teoreticheskij potencial i prakticheskie prilozheniya [Eurasianism: theoretical potential and practical applications]. 2022; 11:39–43 [In Russian].

14. Treshchenkov E.Yu. The Central Asian region in the policy of the European Union. Sovremennaya Evropa [Modern Europe]. 2022; 1:184–195 [In Russian].

15. Harsanyi J., Selten R. A General Theory of Equilibrium Selection in Games / Translated from English. Yu.M.Donts, N.A.Zenkevich, L.A.Petrosyan, A.E.Lukyanova, V.V.Dolzhikov edited by N.E.Zenkevich. St. Petersburg: Economic School, 2001:424 [In Russian].

16. Shadurskiy V.G. Formation of the conceptual foundations of the foreign policy of the Republic of Belarus. Vesnik balaruskaga dzhyarzhaunogo universiteta [Bulletin of the Belarusian State University]. 2011; 3:31–36 [In Russian].

17. Schelling T. Micromotives and Macrobehavior. Moscow: Gaidar Institute Publishing House, 2016:344 [In Russian].

18. Contessi N. Foreign and Security Policy Diversification in Eurasia: Issue Splitting, Co-alignment, and Relational Power. Problems of Post-Communism. 62(5):299-311 [In English]. https://doi.org/10.1080/10758216.2015.1026788. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282803714_Foreign_and_Security_Policy_Diversification_in_Eurasia_Issue_Splitting_Co-alignment_and_Relational_Power.

19. David S. Explaining Third World Alignment. World Politics. 1991; 2:233–256 [In English].