Rus Benliğini Yeniden Düşünmek: Rusya'nın Dış Politika Anlatılarına İnşacı Bir Yaklaşım

Öz

Bu makale, Sovyetler Birliği’nin dağılması sonrasında içsel kimlik tartışmalarının Rus dış politikasını nasıl derinden şekillendirdiğini incelemektedir. Rusya’nın stratejik davranışını yalnızca materyalist ya da realist yaklaşımlar üzerinden değerlendirmek yerine bu analiz; devlet eylemlerini etkileyen sembolik, düşünsel ve kültürel boyutları ön plana çıkarmaktadır. Rusya’nın geleneksel değerlerin koruyucusu olarak konumlandırılması, özgün bir Avrasya medeniyetinin merkezi gücü olarak tasavvur edilmesi, Batı kaynaklı Rusofobinin hedefi olarak sunulması ve çok kutuplu bir uluslararası sistemin savunucusu olarak tanımlanması... Bu anlatılar, Rus liderliğinin Batı’dan kaynaklanan sistematik dışlanma ve varoluşsal tehdit algısı karşısında tutarlı ve istikrarlı bir benlik anlayışı sağlayarak, hayati ontolojik güvenlik işlevleri görmektedir. Rusya’nın kimliğinin 1990’larda liberal Batıcı eğilimlerden, 2000’lerde medeniyet temelli Avrasyacı bir konuma evrilmesi, dış politika kararlarının yorumlanması ve meşrulaştırılmasında kullanılan bilişsel bir çerçeve işlevi görmüştür. 2022 yılında Rusya’nın Ukrayna’yı işgali, bu kimlik anlatılarının jeopolitik eylemleri yayılmacı olmaktan ziyade savunmacı ve varoluşsal olarak sunmak amacıyla nasıl seferber edildiğini açık biçimde ortaya koymaktadır. Son olarak bu çalışma, Rusya’nın güncel dış politikasının, değişen öz algısından ayrı düşünülemeyeceğini ve bu anlatı inşasının Rusya’nın uluslararası düzenle kurduğu ilişkiyi şekillendirmede belirleyici bir rol oynadığını ileri sürmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Rusya
• Rus Dış Politikası
• Kimlik Siyaseti
• Avrasyacılık
• Yapısalcılık

Reimagining the Russian Self: A Constructivist Approach to Russia’s Foreign Policy Narratives

Öz

This article examines how domestic identity contestations have deeply shaped Russian foreign policy since the Soviet Union’s dissolution. Rather than viewing Russia’s strategic behavior through purely materialist or realist lenses, the analysis foregrounds the symbolic, ideational, and cultural dimensions that influence state actions. Russia as a custodian of traditional values, a central force within a unique Eurasian civilization, a target of Western Russophobia, and a proponent of a multipolar international system... These narratives serve vital ontological security purposes by providing a coherent and stable sense of self amid what Russian leaders perceive as systemic exclusion and existential threat from the West. The evolution of Russia’s identity from liberal Westernist aspirations in the 1990s to a civilizational, Eurasianist posture in the 2000s has functioned as a cognitive framework through which foreign policy decisions are interpreted and justified. In 2022, Russia's invasion of Ukraine clearly demonstrated how these identity narratives were mobilized to frame geopolitical actions as defensive and existential rather than expansionist. Finally, this paper contends that Russia’s contemporary foreign policy is inseparable from its evolving self-perception and that narrative construction is pivotal in shaping Russia’s engagement with the international order.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Russia
• Russian Foreign Policy
• Identity Politics
• Eurasianism
• Constructivism

Kaynakça

1. Adler, E. (1997). Seizing ground: Towards a constructivist theory of international politics. European Journal of International Relations, 3(3), 319–363.
2. Biersteker, T. J., & Weber, C. (Eds.). (1996). State sovereignty as social construct. Cambridge University Press.
3. Bozdağlıoğlu, Y. (2011). Turkish foreign policy and Turkish identity: A constructivist approach. Routledge.
4. Bozdağlıoğlu, Y. (2023). Constructivism in international relations. In T. Arı (Ed.), Critical theories in international relations: Identity and security dilemma (pp. 81–101). Lexington Books.
5. Cantir, C., & Kaarbo, J. (2012). Contested roles and domestic politics: Reflections on role theory in foreign policy analysis. Foreign Policy Analysis, 8(1), 5–24.
6. DeBardeleben, J. (2012). Applying constructivism to understanding EU–Russian relations. International Politics, 49(3), 418–433. https://doi.org/10.1057/ip.2012.8.
7. Feklyunina, v. (2016). Soft power and identity: Russia, Ukraine and the ‘Russian World(s)’. European Journal of International Relations, 22(4), 773–796. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066115601200.
8. Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization, 52(4), 887–917.

9. Flockhart, T. (2024). Constructivism and foreign policy. In S. Smith, A. Hadfield, T. Dunne, & N. Kitchen (Eds.), Foreign policy: Theories, actors, cases (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
10. Harnisch, S., Frank, C., & Maull, H. W. (Eds.). (2011). Role theory in international relations. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203818756.
11. Holsti, K. J. (1970). National role conceptions in the study of foreign policy. International Studies Quarterly, 14(3), 233–309.
12. Hopf, T. (1998). The promise of constructivism in international relations theory. International Security, 23(1), 171–200. https://doi.org/10.2307/2539267.
13. Katzenstein, P. J. (Ed.). (1996). The culture of national security: Norms and identity in world politics. Columbia University Press.
14. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1998). The institutional dynamics of international political orders. International Organization, 52(4), 943–969.
15. Narozhna, T. (2021). Misrecognition, ontological security and state foreign policy: The case of post-Soviet Russia. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 76(1), 76–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2021.1985963.
16. Neumann, I. B. (2016). Russia and the idea of Europe: A history of a conceptual divide. Routledge.
17. Onuf, N. (1989). World of our making: Rules and rule in social theory and international relations. University of South Carolina Press.
18. Ovalı, Ş., & Bozdağlıoğlu, Y. (2012). Role theory and securitization: An agency-based framework for decoding Turkey’s diplomatic offensive against Israel. The Turkish Yearbook of International Relations, (43), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1501/Intrel_0000000277.
19. Reus-Smit, C. (2005). Constructivism. In S. Burchill, A. Linklater, R. Devetak, J. Donnelly, M. Paterson, C. Reus-Smit, & J. True (Eds.), Theories of international relations (3rd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.
20. Ruggie, J. G. (1998). What makes the world hang together? Neo-utilitarianism and the social constructivist challenge. International Organization, 52(4), 855–885. https://doi.org/10.1162/002081898550770.
21. Snetkov, A. (2012). When the internal and external collide: A social constructivist reading of Russia’s security policy. Europe-Asia Studies, 64(3), 521–542.
22. Thies, C. G. (2013). Role theory and the social construction of traditional security institutions. Routledge.
23. Tsygankov, A. P. (2012). Russia and the west from Alexander to Putin: Honor in international relations. Cambridge University Press.
24. Tsygankov, A. (2016). Russia’s foreign policy: Change and continuity in national identity (4th ed.). Rowman & Littlefield.
25. Viotti, P. R., & Kauppi, M. V. (2023). International relations theory (7th ed.). Bloomsbury Publishing.
26. Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics. McGraw-Hill.
27. Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics. International Organization, 46(2), 391–425.
28. Wendt, A. (1994). Collective identity formation and the international state. American Political Science Review, 88(2), 384–396.
29. Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge University Press.
30. Ziegler, C. E. (2012). Conceptualizing sovereignty in Russian foreign policy: Realist and constructivist perspectives. International Politics, 49(4), 400–417. https://doi.org/10.1057/ip.2012.7.