Reset in Russia-United States Relations: Causes of Failure and Conclusions for Future
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For five years, the United States and Russia have been interacting within the framework of the “reset”. At that time, two largest nuclear powers managed to come together to a number of constructive agreements and decisions that benefited both parties (for example, the creation of a bilateral presidential commission or the agreement on the northern transport corridor for NATO cargos to Afghanistan) and the whole world (the START-III). At the same time, the term "reset" was not only incorrectly translated into Russian, but also incorrectly selected in English. And the “reset” itself, in the form in which it was launched, was doomed to fail. The principles on which the United States has built and is building interaction with other states, including Russia, remain unchanged: equality and non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries are not in the list of Washington's principles. In addition the “reset” could not cancel the fact of the presence of diametrically opposite interests of Moscow and Washington on a number of issues. The end of the “reset” was only a matter of time, and even five years seems to be a significant span. Moreover, by the year 2020, the main fruits of the “reset” either have become history, or are at risk.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".