Russia–United States Relations in the Late 20th – First Quarter of the 21st Centuries: Trends and Prospects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article studies the relations between Russia and the USA in the late 20th – first decades of the 21st centuries as a central problem of modern international relations. The analysis is performed in the historicalpolitical retrospect, from the 1990s to the present day. When it comes to the 1990s, viewed as a time of friendship and partnership, the reasons for the rapprochement between the two countries are described, as well as the events of the late 1990s – eastward NATO expansion and the NATO bombing of Belgrade – which were the turning point for the decline in Russia–US relations. Talking about the 2000s – 2010s, the author indicates the contradictions in the development of the bilateral relations, namely, a trend towards both improvement (establishment of the NATO–Russia Council following the attacks of September 11, 2001 and the “reset” policy in the late 2000s) and deterioration (as a result of the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, Russo-Georgian conflict in August 2008, Syrian civil war, Ukrainian political crisis and the accession of Crimea to Russia in 2014). According to the author, Russian-American relations over the past decade (2014–2024) could be described as hostile, which eliminates the possibility for their normalization through direct contacts between the two parties. The downward trend in Russia– US relations, which emerged in the late 1990s and continued to grow during the 2000s – 2020s, can be explained by the two countries’ irreconcilable positions on the system of international relations. The United States seek to create a unipolar – Americentric – world, while Russia insists on multipolarity. According to the author, the only way to improve relations between Russia and the USA is to stabilize the system of international relations. This problem is discussed in the final part of the article.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".