¹ Halliday, Fred, ‘The Pertinence of International Relations’, Political Studies, 38 (1990), pp. 502–16; p. 505CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

² On the diversity in the discipline in the West, see, for example, Holsti, K. J., The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory, (Boston, 1987)Google Scholar. See also Maghroori, Ray and Ramberg, Bennet (eds.), Globalism Versus Realism: International Relations’ Third Debate, (Boulder, 1982)Google Scholar, and Linklater, Andrew, Beyond Realism and Marxism: Critical Theory in International Relations (London, 1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³ Lenin, V. I., Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism (Moscow, 1982)Google Scholar. For criticisms of Lenin's case studies and empirical data, see, for example, Brown, M. B., Essays on Imperialism (Nottingham 1972)Google Scholar, and Fieldhouse, D. K., The Theory of Capitalist Imperialism (London, 1975)Google Scholar. For a radical critique of Lenin's theory (and more recent dependency theories stemming from it) see Warren, Bill, Imperialism: Pioneer of Capitalism (London, 1980)Google Scholar.

⁴ On ideology and international relations in the USSR pre-Gorbachev, see Mitchell, R. J., Ideology of a Superpower: Contemporary Soviet Doctrine on International Relations (Stanford, 1982)Google Scholar.

⁵ On the world revolutionary process, see Pavlenko, A., Mirovoi Revolyutsionnii Prolsess (Moscow, 1983)Google Scholar, and V. P. Jerusalimski, ”The World Revolutionary Process in the Present Epoch’, in Theory and Tactics of the International Communist Movement (Moscow, 1985) by the Institute of Social Sciences, pp. 9–40. On the specific role of the national liberation movement, see, for example, Brutents, K. N., Sovremennie Natsional'no-Osvoboditel’ nie Revolyutsii, (Moscow, 1976)Google Scholar.

⁶ See, for example, Hough, Jerry F., The Struggle for the Third World: Soviet Debates and American Options (Washington D.C., 1986)Google Scholar. The works of Margot Light and Allen Lynch have been very useful i n analysing and interpreting important concepts in Soviet theory, Light's work being particularly valuable in demonstrating how Soviet definitions of concepts, such as ‘peaceful coexistence’ and ‘correlation of forces’ have changed over time. See Margot Light, Soviet Theory of International Relations (Brighton, 1988), and Lynch, Allen, The Soviet Study of International Relations (Cambridge, 1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Lynch, Gorbachev's International Outlook: Intellectual Origins and Political Consequences, Institute for East-West Security Studies Occasional Paper Series, no. 9 (New York, 1989). See also Woodby, Sylvia, Gorbachev and the Decline of Ideology in Soviet Foreign Policy (Boulder, 1989)Google Scholar. These studies, however, are not placed in any context which would enable us to determine the overall Soviet approach to international relations, which is what this study attempts to do by utilizing the dominant approaches in western international relations scholarship. Vendulka Kubalkova and Albert Cruickshank have sought to place soviet thinking into a Marxist context: see their Marxism-Leninism and Theory of International Relations (London, 1980) and Marxism and International Relations (Oxford, 1985) especially ch. 4.1 take issue with their more recent analysis of new thinking in the USSR under Gorbachev: Thinking New about ‘New Thinking' (Berkley, 1989) (see below).

⁷ Shakhnazarov, Georgi, Futurology Fiasco: A Critical Study of Non-Marxist Concepts of How Society Develops (Moscow, 1980)Google Scholar. See also Shakhnazarov's The Coming World Order (Moscow, 1984) translated from the original Russian edition (1981) by Margot Light. Georgi Arbatov, Cold War or Detente? The Soviet Viewpoint (London, 1983), pp. 20 & 25. Arbatov still maintained that ‘the class character of militarism’ was ‘beyond argument’ into the glasnost period: ‘Militarizm i sovremennoe obshchestvo’, Kornmunist, 2 (1987), pp. 115–64. Another scholar that showed wide familiarity with Western writings was Vladimir Petrovsky (one of the main idealist influences among the new political thinkers later under Gorbachev). See Petrovsky's, Amerikanskaia vneshne-politcheskaia myst, (Moscow, 1976).

⁸ On the issue of evaluating the USA during this period, see Hough, Jerry F., ‘Debates About the Postwar World’, in Linz, Susan J. (ed.), The Impact of World War II on the Soviet Union (Totowa, NJ, 1985), pp. 253–82Google Scholar.

⁹ One could note here the debate between Lenin and M. N. Roy within the Comintern over the importance of the national liberation movement in the proletarian revolution in the early Bolshevik period. On this, see MacFarlane, S. Neil, Superpower Rivalry and Third World Radicalism: The Idea of National Liberation (Beckenham, Kent, 1985)Google Scholar, especially ch. 3, ‘Marx, Engels and Lenin on National Liberation’, pp. 17–41.

¹⁰ See, for example, B. I. Koval, S. I. Semenov and A. F. Shul'govski, Revolyutsionnye Protsessy v Latinskoi Amerike, (Moscow, 1974); Kosukhin, Nikolai, Afrikanskaia Revolyutsionnaia Demokratiia: Jdeologiia i Politika, (Moscow, 1980)Google Scholar; Pavlenko, Mirovoi Revolyutsionnyi Protsess, and Brutents, Sovremennye Natsional ‘no-Osvoboditet nye Revolyutsii.

¹¹ See N Simonia, ‘Natsionalizm i Politicheskaia Bor'ba v Osvobodivshikhsia Stranakh’, Mirovaia Ekonomika i Mezhdunarodnye Otnosheniia 1 (1972).

¹² Fituni, L. L., Narodnaia Respublika Angola (Moscow, 1985)Google Scholar

¹³ Primakov, E., ‘Zakon Neravnomernosti Razvitiia i Istoricheskie Sud’ by Osvobodivshikhsia Stran’, Mirovaia Ekonomika i Mezhdunarodnye Otnosheniia, 12 (1980), pp. 28—47Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Gorodetskaia, I. E., Velikobritania: Izbirateli, Vybory. Partii, 1945–1970 (Moscow, 1974)Google Scholar. Seep. 219. Gorodetskaia draws heavily on the works of Butler and Stokes, and on Almond and Verba. On changing Soviet views of the Left in Britain, see Bowker, Mike and Shearman, Peter, ‘The Soviet Union and the Left in Britain’, in Pravda, Alex and Duncan, Peter J. S. (eds.) Soviet-British Relations Since the 1970s (London, 1990), pp. 147–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁵ See Malcolm, Neil, Soviet Political Scientists and American Politics (London, 1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁶ See on these issues, Valkenier, Elizabeth, The Soviet Union and The Third World: An Economic Bind (New York, 1983)Google Scholar, and Remnek, R., Soviet Scholars and Soviet Foreign Policy (North Carolina, 1975)Google Scholar.

¹⁷ See, for example, Wilson's Address to the US Congress calling for a declaration of war on Germany i n April, 1917, in John A. Vasquez (ed.), Classics of International Relations 2nd edn (Englewood Cliffs, 1990), pp. 12–15. See also Albert Fried (ed.) A Day of Dedication: The Essential Writings and Speeches of Woodrow Wilson (New York, 1965).

¹⁸ Associated with for example, Carr, E. H., The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919–1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations (London, 1939)Google Scholar, and Morgenthau, Hans J., Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (New York, 1948)Google Scholar.

¹⁹ On the development of integration theory, see Pentland, Charles, International Theory and European Integration (London, 1973)Google Scholar.

²⁰ Keohane and Nye, Power and Interdependence.

²¹ For the traditional, orthodox view, see the two-volume study, Soviet Foreign Policy 1917–1945 and 1945–1980 (Moscow, 1981), prepared by the History of the USSR Institute of the Academy of Sciences, under the general editorship of Andrei Gromyko (former foreign minister) and Boris Ponomaryev (former head of the international department of the CPSU Central Committee).

²² For example, see Bagramova, I. L., ‘SShA-EEC: Agrarnyec Protivorechiia’ SShA: Ekonomika, Politika, Ideologiia, 5 (1986), pp. 81–6Google Scholar.

²³ Lebedev, Nikolai, The USSR in World Politics (Moscow, 1982)Google Scholar. For Lebedev the US defeat in Vietnam signified a turning point in international relations and a strengthening of world socialism (see p. 127, 136, 167, 216.). Professor Lebedev was Rector of the Moscow State Institute of International Relations.

²⁴ Kim, G., ‘The National Liberation Movement Today’, International Affairs (Moscow), 4 (1990)Google Scholar, and Kim, G., ‘Sovietskii Soyuz i Natsional ‘no-osvoboditel’ noe Dvizhenie’, Mirovaia Ekonomika i Mezhdunarodnye Otnoshenia, 9 (1982), pp. 19–33Google Scholar. Kim is a leading authority on the Third World in the Oriental Institute.

²⁵ Elyanov, Anatoly and Sheinis, Viktor, Developing Nations at the Turn of the Millennium (Moscow, 1987)Google Scholar. See also their ‘The Differentiation of the Developing Countries and the Formation of Centres of Power’, Social Sciences Quarterly Review (Moscow), 1 (1991), pp. 169–83.

²⁶ Kiva, Alexei, ‘The Third World's Illusions and Realities’, International Affairs (Moscow), 10 (1991), pp. 30-9; p. 32Google Scholar.

²⁷ This was Kiva's argument, ‘The Third World's Illusions’, p. 31.

²⁸ This was a theme Gorbachev took up in many of his speeches and writings and was the driving force of ‘glasnost’. In his book on Perestroika, he wrote: ‘The political economy of socialism is stuck with outdated concepts and is no longer in tune with the dialects of life. Philosophy and sociology, too, are lagging behind the requirements of practice. Historical science must undergo a major revision’ (Mikhail Gorbachev, Perestroika: New Thinkingfor our Country and the World (Moscow, 1987), p. 49).

²⁹ Shakhnazarov, Georgi, ‘Governability of the World’, International Affairs (Moscow), 3 (1988), pp. 16–24; p. 16Google Scholar.

³⁰ Quoted in Vladimir Wozniuk, ‘The Propaganda Campaign for a New Orthodoxy in Soviet Social Science’, Political Communication and Persuasion, 6 (1989), pp. 249–68; p. 262.

³¹ It was possible to identify a strong realist bent in Primakov's pre-glasnost writings. See, for example, Primakov, E. M., Istoriia Odnogo Sgovora (Moscow, 1985)Google Scholar for an account of the international politics of the Middle East and the Camp David agreement between Egypt and Israel. Jerry Hough notes in his study that Primakov wrote in the language of geopolitics—of'poles’, ‘equilibrium’, ‘balancing’, ‘centers of force’. See Hough, The Strugglefor the Third World, p. 255. It is worth mentioning that Primakov, a member of the CPSU since 1959 had earlier worked for Pravda, the Party newspaper, as a columnist and then Deputy Editor, and Yakovlev, and Arbatov and Shakhnazarov had all worked in the Communist Party's Central Committee apparatus.

³² See Holsti, The Dividing Discipline.

³³ The classificatory scheme is fairly common. See, for example, ‘Introduction’, in Michael Smith, Richard Little, and Michael Shackleton (eds.) Perspectives on World Politics (London, 1981), pp. 2–11. For a slightly different classificatory scheme see James N. Rosenau, ‘Order and Disorder in the Study of World Politics: Ten Essays in Search of Perspective’, in Maghroori and Ramberg (eds.) Globalism Versus Realism, pp. 1–8.

³⁴ Kubalkova and Cruickshank, Soviet New Thinking, p. 19.

³⁵ Kubalkova and Cruickshank, Soviet New Thinking, p. 40.

³⁶ Kubalkova and Cruickshank, Soviet New Thinking, p. 42.

³⁷ Kubalkova and Cruickshank, Soviet New Thinking, p. 62.

³⁸ A theme running throughout their book, but see especially p. 107.

³⁹ Legvold, Robert, ‘The Revolution in Soviet Foreign Policy’, Foreign Affairs, 68 (1988/1999), pp. 82–98; p. 91CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁰ Petrovsky, V. F., ‘Postkonfrontatsionnaia Perspektiva OON’, Mirovaia Ekonomika i Mezhdunarodnye Otnoshenia, 4 (1990), pp. 16–24Google Scholar.

⁴¹ Petrovsky, Vladimir, ‘A Dialogue on Comprehensive Security’, International Affairs (Moscow), 11 (1989), pp. 3–13; p. 3Google Scholar.

⁴² Petrovsky, ‘A Dialogue’, p. 8.

⁴³ Petrovosky, ‘A Dialogue’, p. 11.

⁴⁴ Vestnik, August 1990—an interview with Petrovsky, who was a delegate to the CSCE meeting in Copenhagen, Summer 1990. Vestnik was a new glossy magazine published by the Soviet Foreign Ministry.

⁴⁵ For example, see Petrovsky, Vladimir, ‘Priorities in a Disarming World’, International Affairs (Moscow), 3 (1991), pp. 3–8; p. 3Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ Petrovsky, ‘Priorities in a Disarming World’, p. 3.

⁴⁷ Petrovsky, V. F., ‘OON i gosudarstvennye prioritety SSSR’ Mirovaia Ekonomika i Mezhdunarodnye Otnoshenia, 5 (1991), pp. 22–31, p. 23Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ V. F. Petrovsky, ‘Likat otvety na vyvovy vremeni’, Krasnaia Zvezda, 4 June 1991.

⁴⁹ Izvestia, 13 August 1991.

⁵⁰ Petrovsky, ‘Priorities in a Disarming World’, p. 8.

⁵¹ Pozdnyakov, Elgiz and Shadrina, Irina, ‘Humanisation and Democratisation of International Relations’, Social Sciences Quarterly Review (Moscow), 2 (1990), pp. 183–98Google Scholar, and Pozdnyakov, E., ‘Natstional nye, gosudarstvennye i klassovye interesy v mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniiakh’, Mirovaia Ekonomika i Mezhdunardonye Otnosheniia, 5 (1988) pp. 3–17Google Scholar.

⁵² Pozdnyakov and Shadrina, ‘Humanisation and Democratisation’, p. 192.

⁵³ Pozdnyakov and Shadrina, ‘Humanisation and Democratisation’, p. 193.

⁵⁴ Pozdnyakov and Shadrina, ‘Humanisation and Democratisation’, p. 193.

⁵⁵ Pozdnyakov and Shadrina, ‘Humanisation and Democratisation’, p. 194.

⁵⁶ Pozdnyakov and Shadrina, ‘Humanisation and Democratisation’, p. 195.

⁵⁷ Pozdnyakov and Shadrina, ‘Humanisation and Democratisation’, p. 196.

⁵⁸ Pozdnyakov and Shadrina, ‘Humanisation and Democratisation’, p. 197. See Richard Falk, ‘Future Worlds’, Headline Series, no. 229 (New York, 1976).

⁵⁹ Pravda 28 September 1988.

⁶⁰ Shevardnadze, Eduard, The Future Belongs to Freedom (London, 1991) pp. 66–7Google Scholar.

⁶¹ See, for example, Yakovlev, Alexander, ‘Dostizhenie Kachesvenno Novogo Sostoiania Sovetskogo Obshchestva i Obshchestvennye Nauki’, Kommunist, 8 (1987)Google Scholar, and ‘The Humanistic Choice of Perestroika’, World Marxist Review, 2 (1989), pp. 8–13.

⁶² For his own account of his personal intervention see Time, 4 March 1991, and Time, 11 March 1991.

⁶³ Shevardnadze, The Future Belongs to Freedom, p. 106.

⁶⁴ For example, see Primakov, Yevgenni, ‘USSR Policy on Regional Conflicts’, International Affairs (Moscow), 6 (1988), pp. 3–9Google Scholar. See also his article in Pravda, 10 July 1987. See also Kislov, A., ‘Novoe politicheskoe myshlenie i regional'nye konflikty’, Mirovaia Ekonomika i Mezhdunarodnye Otnosheniia, 6(1988), pp. 39–47Google Scholar.

⁶⁵ ‘Summary of World Broadcasts’, BBC (London), 14 November 1989.

⁶⁶ Trofimenko, G., ‘Soedinnenye Shtaty i My’, Kommunist, 8 (1990)Google Scholar.

⁶⁷ Trofimenko, Genrikh, ‘What Military Doctrine do We Need?’ International Affairs (Moscow), 3 (1991), pp. 7–78; p. 79Google Scholar.

⁶⁸ Trofimenko, ‘What Military Doctrine’, p. 77.

⁶⁹ Trofimenko, ‘What Military Doctrine’, p. 71.

⁷⁰ Blagolovin, S., ‘Voennaia Moshch—Skolko, Kakaia, Zachem?’, Mirovaia Ekonomika i Mezhdunarodnye Otnoshenia, 8 (1989), pp. 3–19Google Scholar.

⁷¹ Kokoshin, Andrei, ‘Europe We Need’, International Affairs (Moscow), 12 (1990), pp. 15–24; p. 17Google Scholar. Waltz, Kenneth, Theory of International Politics (New York, 1979)Google Scholar. Also, Kenneth Waltz, ‘The Myth of National Interdependence’, in Maghroori and Bennet (eds.), Globalism Versus Realism, pp. 81–96.

⁷² Kokoshin, ‘Europe We Need’, p. 17.

⁷³ Kokoshin, ‘Europe We Need’, p. 17.

⁷⁴ Kokoshin, ‘Europe We Need’, pp. 17–18.

⁷⁵ Kokoshin, ‘Europe We Need’, p. 19. See also Andrei Kokoshin and General Major Valentin Larenov, ‘Voennaia Doktrina na Sluzhbe Mira’, Kommunist, 15 (1990), pp. 100–10, for a realistic appraisal of Soviet security needs based upon ‘reasonable sufficiency’.

⁷⁶ A. Kokoshin and S. Chugrov (in conversation) ‘Bezopasnost’ v 90-e god: otkaz ot stereotipov’, Mirovaia Ekonomika i Mezhdunarodnye Otnosheniia, 2 (1991), pp. 123–30: p. 123. For an earlier indication of his great power focus, see his SShA: Zafasadam globalnoi politiki, (Moscow, 1981).

⁷⁷ Kokoshin, ‘Bezopasnost’.

⁷⁸ Zubok, Vladislav and Kokoshin, Andrei. ‘American Sociology and Political Science Today’, Social Sciences Quarterly Review (Moscow), 3 (1991), pp. 21–36Google Scholar. See also Kokoshin, A., Kremenyuk, V. and Sergeyev, V., ‘A Study of International Negotiations: New Approaches’, Social Sciences Quarterly Review (Moscow), 1 (1990), pp. 163–76Google Scholar.

⁷⁹ On this, see Eberhard Shreider, ‘Soviet Foreign Policy Think Tanks’, Washington Quarterly (Spring 1988), pp. 145–55.

⁸⁰ For example, see his ‘Sokrashcheniie strategicheskikh vooruzhenii problemy i neproblemy’, Mirovaia Ekonomika i Mezhdunarodnye Otnosheniia, 2 (1991), pp. 5–17, for an analysis of the START treaty and its ‘unpredictable impact’ on strategic stability.

⁸¹ Kozyrev, Andrei, ‘Confidence and the Balance of Interests’, International Affairs (Moscow), 11 (1988), pp. 3–12; pp. 6–7Google Scholar.

⁸² Kozyrev, A. V., ‘Limitation of the Arms Trade’, in Shaposhnikov, V.S. (ed.) Problems of Common Security (Moscow, 1984), pp. 140–156Google Scholar.

⁸³ Andrei Kozyrev and Andrei Shumikhin, ‘East and West in the Third World’, International Affairs (Moscow), 3 (1989).

⁸⁴ Kozyrev, ‘Confidence and the Balance of Interests.

⁸⁵ Lukin, Vladimir, Tsentry sily: kontseptsii i real’ nosti (Moscow, 1983)Google Scholar. See, for a discussion of the book, Alexander Bovin and Vladimir Lukin, ‘Tsentry sily—doktrina i real'nosti’, Rabochii klass i sovremennyi mir, 2 (1985).

⁸⁶ Kokoshin, ‘Bezopasnost’, p. 124.

⁸⁷ Lukin, V. P. and Nagorny, A. A., ‘Kontseptiia treygolnika SSR-SShA-KNR: novye real nosti mirovoi politika’, SShA: ekonomika, politika, ideologiia 6 (1988)Google Scholar.

⁸⁸ Baranovski, V., ‘Evropa: formirovanie novoi mezhdunarodno-politicheskoi sistemy’, Mirovaia Ekonomika i Mezhdunarodnye Otnosheniia, 9 (1990), pp. 5–18, pp. 7–8Google Scholar.

⁸⁹ Baranovski, ‘Evropa’, p. 8.

⁹⁰ Serebryannikov, V., ‘Oboronnaia Moshch—Kakoi ei Byt?’, Mirovaia Ekonomika i Mezhdunarodnye Otnoshenia. 1 (1990), pp. 105–10Google Scholar.

⁹¹ See Alexander Golts, ‘Ane khvatit li s nas illuzii i ambitsii’, Krasnaia Zvezda, 13 June 1991. Since the August coup attempt in 1991 and the subsequent break-up of the USSR, the theme of Russia acting as a balancing power between Europe and Asia has become prominent in realist writing. See, for example, A Bogaturov, M. Kozhokin and K. Pleshakov, ‘Mezhdu vostakom i zapadom: kontseptsiia vneshnei politiki RSFSR v perekhodnyi period’, Nezavisimaia gazela, 25 September 1991. Gaullism of France in the 1960s has also become a model for many. See for example Andrei Kortunov, ‘Rossiya i de GolP, Moskovskie novosti, 9 September 1990, in which Kortunov suggests Russia should try and balance herself between the EEC, the United States and the Pacific States. Kokoshin has also used the de Gaulle analogy when arguing that Russia should not pursue a policy of nuclear disarmament: ‘Charles de Gaulle made France a nuclear power not for the purpose of deterring us, but in order to regain his country's great power status’. See interview with Kokoshin in New Times. (Moscow) 8 (1992), pp. 26–27.

⁹² See, for example, ‘Polemics’ (interviews with Marshall Sergei Akhromeyev), New Times (Moscow), 14 (1991), pp. 14–19, and New Times, 15 (1991), pp. 12–17. For earlier views, see Akhromeyev, S., ‘Prevoskhodstvo Sovetskoi Voennoi Nauki i Sovetskogo Voennogo Iskustva—Odin iz Vazhneishikh Faktorov Pobedy v Velikoi Otechestvennoi Voine’, Kommunist, 3 (1985), pp. 49–63Google Scholar. Arbatov, G., Militarizm i Sovremennoe Obshchestvo, Kommunist, 2 (1987), pp. 104–115Google Scholar.

⁹³ See Kokoshin and Larenov, ‘Voennaia Doktrina’.

⁹⁴ Kortunov, Andrei, ‘New Dogma of the New Think’, Moscow News, 40 (1990), p. 3Google Scholar. See also Kortunov, Andrei, ‘Vneshnaia Politika’, Kommunist, 12 (1990), pp. 112–20Google Scholar.

⁹⁵ Kortunov, ‘New Dogma of the New Think’, p. 3.