Whose Security: Russia in Asia?

631 Ab Imperio, 3/2002 что для любого, кто обратится не только к дальнейшему изучению ВНС, но и более широким про- блемам национального мира им- перии, книга Д. А. Коцюбинского станет важнейшим подспорьем. Сейчас готовится сразу несколько диссертаций по Националистам, и рецензируемая книга всегда находится у этих исследователей на столе. немало любопытного. Меньшиков, в частности, давая определение “нации”, ру- ководствовался французским определением: “нация” как “лучшая часть народа”. (С. 104) Emilian KAVALSKI Whose Security: Russia in Asia? Rajan Menon, Yuri E. Fedorov, Ghia Nodia (Eds.), Russia, the Caucasus, and Central Asia: The Twenty-first Century Predicament (Armonk, NY: M.E.Sharpe, 1999); xvi+ 272 p. Index. ISBN: 0-76560433 -7 (cloth); S. C. M. Paine, Imperial Rivals: China, Russia, and Their Disputed Frontier (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1996); xxi+419 p. Bibliography. Index. ISBN: 1-56324-723-2 (cloth) ISBN: 1-56324-724-0 (pbk.). The issue of security is a dominant topic in the study of international relations. However, its importance and implications depend on the context to which its explanation and understanding are applied. The end of the Cold War and the subsequent dissolution and disintegration of the Soviet Union put forth (or brought back) a number of “new security predicaments”. In this context, both books – Russia, the Caucasus, and Central Asia and Imperial Rivals – focus on a similar topic: the security dimension(s) of Russia’s southern border. Russia, the Caucasus, and Central Asia centres on the South Caucasus and Central Asia; while Imperial Rivals deals with the border between Russia and China, and the precarious position of Mongolia squeezed between them. Thus, both investigations can be interpreted as part of a larger project: the debate on whether Russia is a European or an Asian power? Both studies suggest a discussion on the notions of power, security and international order in the environment of globalisation. In other words, the two books question whether it is possible to have a discourse on ‘new realities’ without reconsidering the terminology (i.e. its meaning)? In this sense, Russia, the Caucasus, and Central Asia and Imperial Rivals contribute to the 632 Рецензии/Reviews ongoing debate on post-totalitarian transition by providing a scholarly reflection on the social, political and economic changes in the post-Soviet space. Russia, the Caucasus, and Central Asia has the potential to shed valuable light on the developments in the so-called Russia’s “Southern Tier”. The volume is part of a larger project of the East-West Institute dealing with the role of Russia in the “total security” environment of Eurasia (p. xiii). The dominant objective of Russia, the Caucasus, and Central Asia is to present a suggestive comparative discussion of the security predicaments in the South Caucasus and Central Asia in the context of the relations between Russia and the new states formed after the disintegration of the Soviet Union. This broad objective is divided into four major segments (traditional security, economic security, ethnicity and border questions, and non-traditional challenges) in the hope of providing a clearer and more consistent account of the dominant theme. Unfortunately, Russia, the Caucasus , and Central Asia suffers from a lack of targeted editing and organisation . The promising analysis and structure suggested by the objective of the conceptual investigation is not followed through in the essays included in the volume. It seems that the contributors were not aware of each other’s contributions (a belief further entrenched by the presence of only three general references to other articles in the volume). It would have contributed greatly to the analytical consistency of Russia, the Caucasus, and Central Asia if the editors had made available the essays under consideration to the contributing authors, so that they could make their essays consistent with the general outlook of the volume . Moreover, the editors should have spelled out their understanding of the key terms suggested by the objective of this study. On the one hand, such approach would have helped overcome some of the contradictions in the present volume. On the other, the definition of key terms could have provided a foundation (i.e. common ground) for analysing the post-Soviet policies in the South Caucasus and Central Asia. Another editorial shortcoming is the missing justification of the division of the main topic into the four main segments. In other words, do they make sense in terms of their “representativeness ” or in terms of their “prevalence” (or both)? How do they help explain the security environment of Russia’s Southern Tier? Russia, the Caucasus, and Central Asia introduces quite a fuzzy (and disputable) definition of security : “the study...