The authors analyze the divisions within Russian liberalism—another influential IR theory—and the contradictory nature of this intellectual movement. In particular, they draw the attention to the debate between pro-Western and more nationally oriented liberals, which they view in terms of the familiar disagreement between supporters of cosmopolitan and communitarian thoughts. Whereas cosmopolitans insist on the emergence of a single humanity and emphasize the factors of unifying and homogenizing nature, communitarians underscore the role of national and cultural foundations in building democratic institutions in the world. The authors trace how various liberal currents perceive the nature of the post-Cold War order, Russia’s national interests, and its foreign policy orientations.

The essay concentrates on Russian studies of ethnicity and identifies substantialist and relational approaches to studying ethnicity in international relations. Substantialists see the impact of ethnicity as the main organizing force of international politics and view the states as principally ethnocentric units, driven by ambitions of large ethnic groups. In their turn, relationists question these assumptions and seek to depoliticise the notion of ethnicity. Rather than concentrating on states or large ethnic groups in international politics, they take an individual as the main unit of analysis and argue that ethnicity is a choice, not a destiny. The author sees both substantialism and relationism as actively developing in Russia and associates progress in the field with further development and cross-fertilization of the two ideas.

This article analyses realist school in the Russian international relations scholarshipand discusses the debates among Russian realists. It focuses on the characteristics of the newly emerging world order and the development of an adequate strategy for Russia to pursue in its international behavior. The authors argue that over the 1990s, realism has made considerable intellectual progress and has gained the status of a leading intellectual movement in Russia. It assisted Russian intellectual and political community in defining the country’s interests and priorities in the emerging international relations, and it provided a necessary analysis of the world order’s structure and polarity.