ECPR

Install the app

Install this application on your home screen for quick and easy access when you’re on the go.

Just tap Share then “Add to Home Screen”

ECPR

Install the app

Install this application on your home screen for quick and easy access when you’re on the go.

Just tap Share then “Add to Home Screen”

The impact of images on Russia's actions in its neighbourhood: A perspective from political psychology

Foreign Policy
International Relations
Policy Analysis
Political Psychology
Fabienne Bossuyt
Ghent University
Katsiaryna Lozka
Ghent University
Louise Amoris
Ghent University
Fabienne Bossuyt
Ghent University
Katsiaryna Lozka
Ghent University

Abstract

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has prompted scholars to rethink how we can explain Russia's actions in its neighbourhood. This paper argues that the literature studying Russia’s actions in its near abroad has so far neglected the role of cognitive images in Russia's political decision-making over its neighbourhood. In doing so, the literature tends to adopt a Russo-centric focus, and fails not only to acknowledge multiple types of actions, but also to foster a more nuanced understanding of how Russia acts depending on the local context. Moreover, the scholarship tends to focus on the role of the West as Russia's main Other, thereby largely disregarding the various (non-)antagonistic approaches towards other Others. In overcoming these gaps and thus offering a better understanding of Russia’s actions in its neighbourhood, the paper presents a new research agenda by adding a perspective from political psychology. This perspective aims to demonstrate how Russia's images of the “post-Soviet” states inform its actions towards these countries. It assumes that policy-makers are driven by images, i.e. complicated bundles of cognition that filter and organise the perception of the environment. Policy-makers have images of types of states that influence their decision-making. It distinguishes four sets of factors that shape these images: power, intentions, emotional charge, and perception of culture. The paper ends by illustrating how this perspective explains why Russia acted differently in three concrete cases, namely non-interference following the Velvet Revolution in Armenia, aggression in Ukraine following the Euromaidan revolution and covert meddling in Belarus following the 2020 protests.