جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « the united states » در نشریات گروه « علوم سیاسی »

The deterioration of relations between the United States and China since 2018, the intensification of strategic competition due to geopolitical tensions, and the expansion of economic friction between the two countries from trade disputes to broader areas such as technology and supply chain security have led to the formation of this hypothesis that Beijing and Washington are Decoupling. Decoupling means that the interdependence that has built up between China and the United States over at least the last two decades is weakening. However, this study believes that relations between the two countries are in a state of de-risk rather than de-coupling. Based on this, the main question is: What does de-risking mean in the regards of great powers? and what effect can its escalation have on the regional and international order? The research hypothesis is: In the current situation where globalization is in slowbalization state, de-risking in China and the United States relations may lead to monopolies and protectionism, and with the increasing influence of geopolitical tensions, two economic blocs will emerge. The formation of these economic blocs also means the reduction of the hegemonic role of the United States or China and can become the foundation of the bloc-oriented multipolar order.

The main purpose of this study is to examine and analyze the approaches of the United States of America to confront the Islamic Republic of Iran during the four decades of the Islamic Revolution. The analysis of the research findings shows that the United States has used everything it could to confront the Islamic Republic of Iran in the form of three approaches of hard power, soft power and smart power, and it can be seen that in the post-revolutionary period, US actions It has endangered the national security of the Islamic Republic of Iran.Examining the US confrontational approaches against the Islamic Republic of Iran and comparing the strategies of Republicans and Democrats, it is clear that the US enmity with the Islamic Republic of Iran is not limited to this or that government and to Republicans or Democrats in general, but to the entire US political system. It is against the Islamic Republic of Iran. In this study, while examining the dimensions of the relationship with the United States, the nature of the issue has been explained in terms of the cost of challenges and compromises, as well as the opportunities and threats of communication with the United States. It is a applied-fundamental research, and since we intend to explain the US approaches in the fourteen decades of confrontation and challenge with the Islamic Republic of Iran, it will be a developmental research.

The US trade war against China started in the Trump administration and had a great impact on the political and economic situation of the world. In this regard, this research tries to answer these questions. First, why the trade war has noticed during the Trump era? Second, why did the US trade war eventually focus on China despite the increasing economic tension of the Trump administration with other countries? And finally, has Trump's desired trade war subsided during the Biden era, and if not, what changes have occurred in its implementation? According to the hypothesis, the emphasis on trade war in Trump's foreign policy has been influenced by his nationalistic policy in redefining America's economic relations with other countries, but due to America's strategic competition with China, America's trade war was focused on China. In the Biden period, despite his government's emphasis on reducing trade tension with China, the trade war approach against China has continued. In the findings of the research, it was found that instead of directly emphasizing the trade war, the Biden government tries to combine its actions against indirectly, and he actually seeks to achieve a global and regional alliance in Asia around China. The framework of this research is descriptive and analytical, and data collection and analysis have been done in a qualitative way based the Trend Analysis.

Every crisis that happens, the nature and messages of the actors are different. In other words, domestic crises have domestic effects and consequences, and international crises have international effects and consequences. The crisis may not be an exception to this rule and it has results and consequences, and these consequences will definitely expand with its continuation, but it can be recognized according to the effects of all and its consequences. What is certain is that this is the main cause of this crisis. Ukraine is a country with a special geopolitical position between the European Union and Russia. This geopolitical situation has caused Ukraine to inadvertently enter into international conflicts, which have generally been between the three powers of Russia, the European Union, and the United States. In fact, Ukraine has been a victim of geopolitical danger, which has always caused many conflicts and displacements in this country throughout history, and this issue has made it unable to have an independent internal policy and always fluctuate between the East and the East. The crisis of 2014 (Ukraine), which arose after the non-signing of the cooperation agreement between Ukraine and the European Union, can be considered in the framework of competition between great powers.

A question has been raised about this research, what is the impact of this crisis and does it have any consequences for European countries, Russia, Europe and the United States?Research Hypothesis: Every crisis that occurs has different nature and effects, actors and messages. In other words, domestic crises have domestic effects and consequences, and international crises have international effects and consequences. The crisis may not be an exception to this rule and it has results and consequences, and these consequences will definitely expand with the continuation of the crisis, but it can be recognized due to the continuity of all its effects and consequences. What is certain is that this issue is the main cause of this crisis.

The research method is descriptive-analytical in the form of a qualitative method based on content analysis and using the threat balance theory as an intellectual framework. Stephen Walt believes that governments not only balance against power, but may also balance against threats. Walt believes that the threat is the core of countries' concern. To understand the extent of the threat, factors such as threatening intentions and behavior, geographic proximity, and offensive power of the threat source must also be considered. The situation of Ukraine is such that this country is placed between Russia and the West, and if each of the parties dominates this country, they will be in a higher position and will subsequently gain the ability to create threats. Russia felt threatened by Ukraine joining the European Union and NATO and considered it a strategic threat and reacted to it. In fact, Russia's sense of danger from the emerging threats led this country to adopt a balancing act against other powers.

The crisis of 2014 in Ukraine, which led to the non-signing of the cooperation agreement between the representatives of this country and the European Union, can also be considered against this power. Yanukovych announced that he has no ally to join the European Union. This was followed by a demonstration in Kyiv’s Independence Square protesting Yanukovych's decision not to join the European Union. The demonstration turned violent. Following these developments and the deterioration of the local internal situation, Viktor Yanukovych was removed from the presidency, elections were held on May 25, 2014, and Petro Poroshenko was elected as the President of the Republic. Following these incidents, serious protests started in the east and south of the country. On February 26, pro-Russian separatists took control of the Crimean Peninsula. A few days after these events, on March 16, 2014, the people of Crimea joined Russia by holding a referendum, and this peninsula became part of Russian territory. After Crimea’s independence, separatists demonstrated in Luhansk and Donetsk, demanding secession from Kyiv. With the efforts of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the warring groups signed the Minsk Protocol in September 2014 with the aim of a ceasefire. After a month-long ceasefire, a second Minsk agreement was signed in February 2015 by the leaders of Britain, Russia, some French and German officials to revive the previous agreement. Therefore, the consequences of this crisis are not limited to everyone, but it has many effects and consequences for all parties involved.

The crisis of 2014 was the result of the friction of the great powers, as well as the readiness of the internal conditions in Ukraine. Following this crisis, the demarcations of the Cold War era were reestablished, but in this period the competition was more economic and both sides benefited more from economic and political tools. EU-Russia relations were at a high level before the crisis, the volume of trade between these two powers was high, and these relations were not suitable for the United States because by destroying Russia, the world was moving towards multipolarity. This leads to a situation in which the United States can no longer exert power alone as a hegemon. Therefore, with this crisis, the relationship between Russia and the European Union has decreased significantly, and the European Union has approached the United States to deal with Russia and has increased its relations with this country.

The Central Asian region has a geostrategic position that has become a competitive place between the United States and China since the collapse of the Soviet Union, especially after the US presence in the region. By Using descriptive-analytical research method and data collection through library studies, the article tries to answer the question of what are the implications of Sino-U.S. rivalry in Central Asia for the peace process in Afghanistan (2001-2020). The paper examines the issue of research in the conceptual framework of the competition of great powers. To answer this question, the implications are categorized and analyzed based on economic, security, political, and cultural spheres. The findings of the article show that despite the fact that in some sub-branches of economic and security fields, there are common interests between the United States and China, the conflicts of interest between the two countries are more intense in all spheres. The study shows that although the common interests of the two countries have had positive consequences, such as weakening Central Asian terrorist groups that are active in Afghanistan, weakening al-Qaeda, weakening ISIS, internalizing Taliban ideology, and strengthening the international community among Taliban decision-makers, Widespread conflicts of interest between China and the United States in the Central Asian region have complicated the peace process in Afghanistan.

For constructivists, strategic culture is the product of norms and culture-bearing units such as norm entrepreneurs. They believe that the United States invaded Iraq to replace the dominant strategic cultural norms under the logic of the Cold War with a new approach, i.e., democratic regime change through preventive war. However, during the Iraq War, the proposed paradigm, advocated by neoconservative norm entrepreneurs and traditional conservatives in the Bush administration, could not take the place of the Cold War-era strategy for multilateral containment. This norm was a part of a larger revolutionary strategy that advocated the policy of preventive war and the hegemonic paradigm, promoting the US hegemon of democracy through force. The US sought to spread this new view by piloting it in Iraq in order to prove the viability and effectiveness of preventive war. New international groupings such as “coalitions of the willing” and the national security strategy of 2002 provided the documents legitimating these new policies. However, the publishing of these documents encountered strong opposition at domestic and international levels. Therefore, the American strategic culture and national security policy briefly worked with the proposed opposing neoconservative paradigm, but presently they are returning to a version of the Cold War normative paradigm. In constructivist view, the Iraq War not only was not able to show the validity of a new vision of American strategic culture, but also undercut the paradigm it was supposed to underpin.

Sanctions are one of the foreign policy tools of states to change the behavior of other states and pursue their national interests. The United States is one of the countries that has used the most sanctions against other states. The purpose of the present study is to measure the impact of sanctions on Iranians after the withdrawal of the United States from the JCPOA. The main question of the research is, what effect did sanctions have on the public health of Iranian citizens during the period of 2018 to 2022? The hypothesis of the research indicates that sanctions severely affect public health and its components. Quantitative methods and questionnaire tools were used to evaluate the article's hypothesis. The statistical sample of the research was made up of 400 citizens living in Yasouj city (stratified-random method) and two samples mean test, regression, Pearson correlation coefficient, and... were used to analyze the data. The findings of the research show that there is a significant relationship between the US sanctions and the public health of the Yasouj citizens. Also, the results showed that there are no significant differences in variables such as age, gender, and marital status between men and women.

The governing structure of the international system and, consequently, the Middle East order, which is influenced by the arrangement, competition, and interaction of regional actors and interregional intervening powers, have particular effects and consequences on the relations of actors in the Middle East. Organizes the surface of regular areas. The relations between the Islamic Republic of Iran and Saudi Arabia and the patterns of interaction and friendship-enmity between the two countries are also a function of the formulations of the structure of the international system and the order of the Middle East. The question of the present article is that what effect does the anti-hegemonic emergence of the Islamic Republic of Iran have on the position of Saudi Arabia in US policy (considering the superior role of the US in the structure of the international system) in the West Asian region? Findings of the article Using neo-realist theoretical propositions show that Washington, in the context of its superior role in the structure of the international system, uses Riyadh as a geopolitical, geostrategic and geocultural weight to maintain balance. It looks at regional forces and countering the emergence and expansion of anti-hegemonic powers such as Iran. This article has been done through qualitative-interpretive method and inference of information through existing documents with descriptive-analytical approach and case information. The need has also been collected by taking methods from available and available sources, including: books, articles in domestic scientific research quarterly and foreign articles, reputable sites and Internet resources, and so on.

Since the twentieth century, especially in the new millennium, the great powers shape the international relations, particularily more power in the hierarchy can shape the structure of the international system more. US-Russian relations can be assessed under the influence of the structure of the international system, factors such as NATO's expansion to the east, energy transmission and arms competition, countries around Russia are the arena of Russian-American rivalry in the structure of the international system. The Russia-Ukraine war in 2022 will determine the sphere of influence of US-Russian in Europe in the coming decades. Although the Russia-Ukraine war took place in the Eastern European region, its global impact will be great. After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the restructuring of the international system to the US-led hierarchical system, Ukraine has faced serious crises. The question that can be asked in this regard is the role of the structure of the international system in examining the roots of the Russia-Ukraine war in 2022. In response, the Ukraine-Russia war can be seen as an arena of direct US-Russian competition in the structure of the international system.

The United States seeks a long-term proxy war in Ukraine for Russia, an erosive war that perpetuates tensions between Europe and Russia and maintains confidence in the US presence in Europe for decades to come.

The successive failures of the US hard power and the increase in the material and spiritual costs of this country in the use of the hardware resources of power have caused this country to move towards the software resources of power in recent decades and in this field some successes. However, the actions, policies, and management of American officials in world politics led to a decline in the legitimacy and acceptance of American power in international public opinion. In other words, the growth and development phase of US software power has declined, and in the current situation, the United States no longer has the necessary capability to exercise soft power; Because its policies are not beautiful, glorious, or acceptable to nation-states, and the cultural, political, and economic resources of America's soft power are pessimistic. Given the importance of soft power in global relations and how the United States operates in this area, this article seeks to answer the key question that; What are the components of the decline of US soft power in the global political process? To answer the main and secondary questions of the article, the authors try to explain the reasons for the decline of soft resources of American power by using analytical-descriptive method. The findings show that the reasons for the decline of US soft power are: the emergence of new powers, internal socio-political crises, the reduction of international influence on financial and economic institutions, the discredit of US foreign policy and diplomacy.

The unilateral withdrawal of the US Joint Action Plan (Brajam) was imposed on the Iranian government and nation away from unilateral pressure and sanctions. Former US President Trump, by complaining about the nuclear deal, applied a maximum pressure strategy to achieve his goals towards Iran. Credit sanctions on economic oppression and the provision of internal chaos and threatening to use coercive and military warfare as two major approaches to surrender and concession from Iran were on the agenda. The purpose of this analysis is to accommodate US military entry and attack on Iran before the 2024 presidential election. The main question is: Is there a possibility of a US military attack on Iran before the presidential election? The hypotheses that are answered by planning two scenarios, warfare factors and war deterrent factors, and on the other hand, referring to the opinions and opinions of international relations experts, on the priority, preference and power of influencing agents. The deterrent of the war as a barrier and an obstacle to the possibility of a military war against Iran. In this study, we use the analytical and qualitative method using statistics and direct interviews with international relations experts.

With the rise of emerging powers, the multilateral liberal international order, which has always been characterized as having the full support of the transatlantic alliance partners, is grappling with the challenges of inadequacy of the United States as a hegemonic power, and illegitimacy of rival powers such as China. In the meantime, the European Union, as a key actor believes in the indirect exercise of power through the institutions of global governance, and seeks to protect and restore the legitimacy and effectiveness of the multilateral international system as an entity that can provide more space and opportunities for Europe to safeguard its interest. Recent developments in the structure of the international system have affected the relative position of the three major global actors (i.e., the European Union, the United States and China) in the existing world order and its management mechanism which will be influenced by new interest-based alliances. By collecting qualitative data available in governmental and non-governmental studies and reports, and by developing and analyzing possible scenarios, the authors attempt to answer the following research question: What choices do the EU status-quo supporters have in order to create a balance between the revisionist United States and opportunist China? Based on Schweller's theory of revisionist or status quo behaviors of governments, and his four types of governments (i.e., lion, lamb, fox and wolf), the policies of the United States, China, and the European Union have been analyzed in terms of maintaining or changing the status quo. Within the context of this theory, in their research hypothesis, the authors postulate that given the common interest of the EU and the United States in maintaining the Western-oriented international order and the common interest of the EU and China in upholding multilateralism (particularly trade multilateralism) as a mechanism for managing order, the EU has formulated its policy of balancing relations with the US and China. For hypothesis testing, five probable scenarios are developed and analyzed. It is asserted that the use of scenarios and public goods game as a research tool will be useful in carefully examining the contentious issues in the relationship between key international actors. Scenarios help to better understand the worldviews and policies of multiple stakeholders. Public goods games have been useful in understanding the role of rationality in actors' decision-making and the key behavioral incentives which determine what choices will be made for cooperation and conflict in inter-state relations. The EU's share in the supply of global public goods (based on Western values) and the role that the EU should play in this international game are determined based on “absolute personal interests”. The key factors which work as incentives for the role of the EU in the supply of public goods are the self-seeking benefits of their contributions, the expected costs associated with the failure to participate in the supply of public goods, and the concerns about the irrational or opportunist behaviors of the other international players which might try to maximize their own benefits at the expense of the EU. In conclusion, it is argued that the most likely scenario would probably be a hybrid scenario in which the European Union is reasonably anticipated to follow its own independent path in order to maintain global multilateralism, but in parallel with its transatlantic cooperation with the US to contain China, and its continued policy of keeping its trade ties with China intact. Such a dual-purpose policy would be adopted to maintain the EU's capacity for independent action while balancing its relationship with both China and the US. In other words, the European Union is primarily seeking to enhance (and then maintain) its capacity for independent action so that in case of the intensification of the renewed great power competition and even hostility, it could use this capacity in cooperation with the middle powers of the international systems for the purpose of safeguarding its independent position in global affairs. The EU is aware of the undeniable role of the United States and China in shaping the world order, and is eager to increase the breadth and complexity of its relations with these two players. It is not surprising to observe the EU’s continued efforts to maintain good relations with both China and the United States based on a set of common interests since it wants to avoid being relegated to a bargaining chip in a probable US-China confrontation.. In sum, the EU is forced to play a balancing act between China and the US, but it is also interested in forming interest-based alliances with the middle powers.

Proper planning based on future trends to advance national security goals and national interests is one of the most important tasks of strategists in each country.Considering the importance of scenario planning in strategic studies, present paper attempts to use the research methodology of the future research and using the TAIDA model, which focuses on the five approaches of " Tracking, Analyzing, Deciding, and Action", The author seeks to examine possible scenarios for regional order in the event of the withdrawal of US troops from the region. With this statement, the main question of the present study is: What will be the possible scenarios regarding the regional order of the withdrawal of American troops from the region?Scenarios include: - The vacuum of power and the development of the activities of non-governmental forces such as ISIS and the resulting disorder.- The possibility that some countries in the region will prevail and its order will be formed based on their interests.- Formation of regional convergence for security by the countries of the region.Finally, the author will try to express the desired scenario from the point of view of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Valery Gerasimov introduced his Hybrid Warfare Doctrine in 2013. In his doctrine, Gerasimov emphasized a combined use of hard and soft power elements (components) because he believed that Russia needs a new approach to counter new threats effectively. Therefore, it can be concluded that the Hybrid Warfare Doctrine is based on foresight and is formulated to prepare Russia to have a strong presence in modern battles. In addition to emphasizing a combination of hard and soft power, this doctrine attaches greater importance to the soft power and a redesigning of Russia’s defensive policies and troops; it also underscores deep concentration on military and defensive research projects. Thus, Gerasimov challenged the mainstream Russian approaches to the military and asserted that political leaders required innovative ideas and initiative to deal with future security/safety challenges. This doctrine gained popularity for the first time during the 2014 Russo-Ukrainian War, catching the attention of political, military, and security analysts. Russians applied Gerasimov Doctrine on a large scale in Ukraine for the first time and succeeded in annexing the Crimean Peninsula to their federation using an effective combination of soft and hard power. This was a great achievement for Russians because the Crimean Peninsula had a special strategic place on the Black Sea and could give Russians easy, rapid access to the eastern parts of the Mediterranean Sea, the Balkans, West Asia, and North Africa. As a result, Russians could gain numerous military, economic, and commercial advantages. Afterward, Russians started to get the most and realize their goals in West Asia and North Africa by applying Gerasimov Doctrine principles widely. Kremlin has always had eyes on this region since the USSR; however, when the USSR dissolved, Moscow focused more on problems caused by the dissolution. Consequently, the US seized the moment (used Moscow’s passive policy in its favor) and expanded its sway over this strategically important region. Russia rekindled its interest in West Asia and North Africa when Vladimir Putin took office. Russians believed they could achieve their goals and protect their interests only if they had a stronger presence in the region. They saw this region as promising in terms of economy, military, politics, and security. But Moscow faced a major challenge on this path: the US, a formidable rival. Looking back to their success concerning Ukraine, Russians believed that Gerasimov Hybrid Warfare Doctrine was the best tool to achieve their goals. Therefore, when they decided to intervene in the Syrian Crisis on the pretext of inhibiting terrorist activities, not only did they employ hard power, but they also used hybrid warfare elements extensively. Their success in Ukraine and events such as the Islamic Awakening made them fully aware of the importance and efficacy of soft war. Russians seemed to aim for more than a war on terrorism; they also harbored the thought of impeding the US increasing influence in Syria and the entire region. Applying Gerasimov Hybrid Warfare Doctrine in Syria, Russians gained remarkable achievements; as a result, by applying hybrid warfare elements in Libya, they resolved to challenge the US unrivaled position in the region and restore Moscow to its former glory in this oil-rich country in North Africa. In line with this, the current study addressed how Russia has used Gerasimov Hybrid Warfare principles to confront the US in this region. The data were collected through desk research and then described and explained within the research conceptual framework; the results showed that following Gerasimov Doctrine, Russia is combining the elements of hard and soft power to limit the expansion of the US influence in Western Asia and North Africa and widen its sphere of influence in the region. Russians concluded that non-linear warfare elements can enable them to pursue their ambitious geopolitical and geo-strategic policies without confrontation with the US. Even though Russia is a military superpower and its nuclear arsenal can pre-empt and minimize armed conflicts with the US, Russians regard Gerasimov Doctrine as a safer and more cost-effective path to their goals. In sum, considering the achievements Russia gained by applying Gerasimov Doctrine in Ukraine, Syria, and Libya, it appears that it is expanding its capabilities in hybrid, non-linear warfare and intends to promote this type of warfare in other parts of the globe.

The strategic area of Central Eurasia is one of the most important regions in the post-Soviet space, accepting the rivalry between the Russian Federation and the United States, and has introduced itself as a mirror of international politics. Regarding the strategic culture of Moscow’s foreign policy, it can be said that since the Russian Federation does not want to fully maintain the basic rules of the international system, nor does it seek to make extensive changes to the rules of this order, hence the idea of “reformist” activism Comes to mind. Reform activists are actors who pursue different motives and methods than other actors in international politics. The Russian Federation, as a reformist power, has on its agenda the two principles of peaceful coexistence and the creation of a multipolar world in its new foreign policy. In this context, the Russian Federation, on the one hand, does not reject any change in the status quo and intervention abroad (Central Asia, South Caucasus, Black Sea, and Baltic), and on the other, is dissatisfied with the current state of the international system and wants a complete transformation. It is not in the rules that govern it either.As for the United States’ movements in the geographical territory of Central Eurasia, it can be said that Washington generally seeks to sign bilateral and multilateral military agreements with Georgia, Ukraine, Romania, and the Czech Republic, following political intervention and attempts to bring the republics of the region under its security umbrella. In this regard, Poland is trying to move forward and most importantly, is building several anti-missile defense systems in the frame of NATO expansion. Although the White House has claimed that the purpose of the missile defense shield is to protect the United States and NATO members from North Korea’s threats and the Islamic Republic of Iran’s ballistic missiles, nevertheless the Kremlin sees it as a serious threat to its national security. Moscow is very serious and determined in its position and constantly declares that the justification of the United States for the establishment of a missile defense shield is a mere excuse for the blockade of the Russian Federation. The Russian Federation considers the United States moves in this regard an attempt to achieve “strategic superiority” and to play with the result of a zero-sum game, which is targeted at the same time as weakening strategic depth, geopolitical contraction, and Moscow’s exclusion from European arrangements. From the above-mentioned points, it can be concluded that the main issues affecting the political-security relations between the Russian Federation and the United States are mutual threats and suspicions, successive and endless cycles of de-escalation, and involvement of various internal and external variables in the current process between the two countries which shows the complexity and multi-layered nature of this conflict.The Main Question is: what impact has the strategic culture and its components had on the actions of the Russian Federation and the United States in the Central Eurasian region in the last two decades?The Hypothesis posed by the above-mentioned question is that strategic culture serves as a driving force behind Moscow’s post-Soviet actions, including components such as strategic expansionism, the spread of Orthodox identity and the Russian nationalist discourse, and the consolidation of national power in the environment. In contrast, the United States has developed a special strategic culture to promote a culture of liberal democracy, establish a superpower position and create regional balance.The method used in this research is explanatory-prescriptive and the type of the research is fundamental. The nature of this writing is also qualitative. The data collection has been through the library method, the use of internet resources, articles, and documents.Analyzing the strategic behaviors of political units through the components of strategic culture has advantages the most important of which is the possibility of understanding the actions of the actor in question and predicting the behaviors arising from it. The theory makes it possible for researchers to understand how countries view strategic issues and what reactions they emit in a variety of situations, even in emergencies. Regarding strategic culture, it should be noted that this component is the product of the historical experience of countries. On the other hand, because experiences are different among governments, different actors have different strategic cultures. In this way, it can be said that the strategic culture acts as a magnifying glass through which the type of relationship between the international goals, motives, and actions of the Russian Federation and the United States can be evaluated and examined in the management of international crises.As mentioned at the beginning of the research, the most important components of the Russian Federation’s strategic culture include geopolitical features and a development view, the idea of great power and regional hegemony, dominant authoritarianism, Russian nationalist discourse, and Slavic-Orthodox identity, and the notion of threat. They have left a deep impression on the strategic decision-making and foreign policy of the Russian Federation. In other words, it can be said that Moscow, in articulating its foreign policy discourse and strategic decision-making, has relied on the above-mentioned components. Accordingly, the Russian Federation in the field of foreign policy has strategies such as selective interaction, soft balance and an emphasis on multilateralism, the great normative modern strategy, eastward policy, confrontation with fundamentalism and terrorism, and Russian-oriented political and security institutionalism in the region which has made the headline of its work. Regarding the strategic culture of the United States, it must be acknowledged that to achieve the goals that have been formed under the influence of its strategic culture, it seeks hegemony and consolidation of its power in the world. In this regard, the United States has a mission to lead the world and is committed to global governance. In the meantime, if the country resorts to military force, it will inevitably use it. As a result, it can be said that the components that shape the strategic culture of the United States are aggressive, which is effective in pursuing its aggressive foreign policy in the strategic context of Central Eurasia.