How do think tanks influence Western policies toward Russia? The influence of think tanks in Washington has grown immensely over the past decades in terms of producing research papers, engaging with the media, and having their staff enter government. The ideal purpose and appeal of think tanks is their ability to function as a bridge between academics, the media, the public, and decision-makers. Political decision-makers are expected to be experts across a wide area of governance which becomes increasingly difficult as the world becomes more complex. Acquiring advice and enhancing competencies through cooperation with scholars at universities can be challenging as academics tend to focus on narrow research questions that take place within a wider discussion of theory and method. Think tanks respond to this challenge as institutions that provide focused research studies and policy papers to address specific and current challenges. The negative aspect of think tanks is the power they wield, from controlling information to functioning as a waiting room for politicians out of office. Information is power, and a think tanks business model has been established that sells political influence in Washington and manufactures consent among the public. The military-industrial complex is the dominant donor to think tanks, which results in a bias toward military solutions and perpetuating conflict. Russia remains a leading adversary of the West and has sustained Washington’s exorbitant military spending over many decades. Think tanks accordingly have a great incentive to push for a confrontational posture towards Russia as they operate in an industry where conflicts are profitable and peace produces losses A mutually acceptable post-Cold War settlement threatened the revenue of one of the largest and most influential industries in the US, which was reversed as a result of NATO expansion and renewed tensions with Russia. This book explores how the think tanks function, and how their growing role has influenced US policies toward Russia.

How do think tanks influence Western policies toward Russia? The influence of think tanks in Washington has grown immensely over the past decades in terms of producing research papers, engaging with the media, and having their staff enter government. The ideal purpose and appeal of think tanks are their ability to function as a bridge between academics, the media, the public, and decision-makers. Political decision-makers are expected to be experts across a wide area of governance which becomes increasingly difficult as the world becomes more complex. Acquiring advice and enhancing competencies through cooperation with scholars at universities can be challenging as academics tend to focus on narrow research questions that take place within a wider discussion of theory and method. Think tanks respond to this challenge as institutions that provide focused research studies and policy papers to address specific and current challenges. The negative aspect of think tanks is the power they wield, from controlling information to functioning as a waiting room for politicians out of office. Information is power, and a think tanks business model has been established that sells political influence in Washington and manufactures consent among the public. The military-industrial complex is the dominant donor to think tanks, which results in a bias toward military solutions and perpetuating conflict. Russia remains a leading adversary of the West and has sustained Washington's exorbitant military spending over many decades. Think tanks accordingly have a great incentive to push for a confrontational posture towards Russia as they operate in an industry where conflicts are profitable and peace produces losses A mutually acceptable post-Cold War settlement threatened the revenue of one of the largest and most influential industries in the US, which was reversed as a result of NATO expansion and renewed tensions with Russia. This book explores how the think tanks function, and how their growing role has influenced US policies toward Russia.

What explains the rise of populist movements across the West and their affinity towards Russia? UKIP’s Brexit victory, Trump’s triumph, and the successive elections and referendums in Europe were united by a repudiation of the liberal international order. These new political forces envision the struggle to reproduce and advance Western civilisation to be fought along a patriotism–cosmopolitanism or nationalism–globalism battlefield, in which Russia becomes a partner rather than an adversary. Armed with neomodernism and geoeconomics, Russia has inadvertently taken on a central role in the decay of Western civilisation. This book explores the cooperation and competition between Western and Russian civilisation and the rise of anti-establishment political forces both contesting the international liberal order and expressing the desire for closer relations with Russia. Diesen proposes that Western civilisation has reached a critical juncture as modern society (gesellschaft) has overwhelmed and exhausted the traditional community (gemeinschaft) and shows the causes for the decay of Western civilisation and the subsequent impact on cooperation and conflict with Russia. The author also considers whether Russia’s international conservativism is authentic and can negate the West’s decadence, or if it is merely a shrewd strategy by a rival civilisation also in decay. This volume will be of interest to scholars of international relations, political science, security studies, international political economy, and Russian studies.

War Is a Racket is a speech and a 1935 short book, by Smedley D. Butler, a retired United States Marine Corps Major General and two-time Medal of Honor recipient. Based on his career military experience, Butler frankly discusses how business interests commercially benefit (including war profiteering) from warfare. He had been appointed commanding officer of the Gendarmerie during the United States occupation of Haiti, which lasted from 1915 to 1934.

Five hundred years of Western hegemony has ended, while the global majority’s aspiration for a world order based on multipolarity and sovereign equality is rising. This incisive book addresses the demise of liberal hegemony, though pointing out that a multipolar Westphalian world order has not yet taken shape, leaving the world in a period of interregnum. A legal vacuum has emerged, in which the conflicting sides are competing to define the future order. NATO expansionism was an important component of liberal hegemony as it was intended to cement the collective hegemony of the West as the foundation for a liberal democratic peace. Instead, it dismantled the pan-European security architecture and set Europe on the path to war without the possibility of a course correction. Ukraine as a divided country in a divided Europe has been a crucial pawn in the great power competition between NATO and Russia for the past three decades. The war in Ukraine is a symptom of the collapsing world order. The war revealed the dysfunction of liberal hegemony in terms of both power and legitimacy, and it sparked a proxy war between the West and Russia instead of ensuring peace, the source of its legitimacy. The proxy war, unprecedented sanctions, and efforts to isolate Russia in the wider world contributed to the demise of liberal hegemony as opposed to its revival. Much of the world responded to the war by intensifying their transition to a Eurasian world order that rejects hegemony and liberal universalism. The economic architecture is being reorganised as the world diversifies away from excessive reliance on Western technologies, industries, transportation corridors, banks, payment systems, insurance systems, and currencies. Universalism based on Western values is replaced by civilisational distinctiveness, sovereign inequality is swapped with sovereign equality, socialising inferiors is replaced by negotiations, and the rules-based international order is discarded in favour of international law. A Westphalian world order is reasserting itself, although with Eurasian characteristics. The West’s defeat of Russia would restore the unipolar world order while a Russian victory would cement a multipolar one. The international system is now at its most dangerous as the prospect of compromise is absent, meaning the winner will take all. Both NATO under US direction and Russia are therefore prepared to take great risks and escalate, making nuclear wan increasingly likely.