Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis integrasi Krimea ke Rusia pada tahun 2014 dan respon Rusia dalam menghadapi sanksi-sanksi Aliansi Barat. Fokus Permasalahan yang akan dibahas dalam penelitian ini adalah proses rekonstruksi kebijakan Rusia menerima Krimea bergabung dengan Rusia. Isu yang kedua adalah diplomasi publik Rusia respon dalam menghadapi sanksi-sanksi yang diberikan oleh Aliansi Barat. Adapun fokus dari aktor-aktor yang memberikan sanksi hanya terbatas pada sanksi yang diberikan oleh Uni Eropa dan Amerika Serikat. Periodisasi yang difokuskan dalam penelitian ini adalah pada tahun 2014-2015. Metode penelitian yang digunakan dalam tesis ini adalah metode penelitian kualitatif. Data-data yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah pada pidato resmi dan wawancara dengan Presiden Rusia, Perdana Menteri dan Menteri Luar Negeri. Teori yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah Teori Kepentingan Nasional Jutta Weldes. Teori ini diharapkan mampu memberikan penjelasan tentang alasan tindakan Rusia menerima Krimea bergabung dengan Rusia sebagai bentuk perluasan wilayah Rusia. Konsep yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah konsep diplomasi publik. Konsep ini digunakan untuk menganalisis sikap Rusia dalam menghadapi sanksi-sanksi yang diberikan oleh UE dan AS sebagai bentuk diplomasi publik Rusia. Dalam tesis ini terdapat beberapa hasil. Yang pertama adalah peneliti berasumsi bahwa kebijakan Rusia di Krimea direkonstruksi melalui dua proses yaitu artikulasi dan interpelasi. Artikulasi Rusia terhadap peristiwa yang terjadi di Ukraina adalah bahwa Euromai dan merupakan kudeta. Perluasan keanggotaan NATO dan Uni Eropa merupakan bentuk agresif dari negara-negara Barat untuk menyebarkan pengaruh mereka. Posisi Rusia dalam krisis Ukraina adalah sebagai subjek sentral yang memiliki identitas sebagai negara yang melindungi kepentingan tanpa melakukan intervensi. Sedangkan, Aliansi Barat menempati posisi sebagai negara agresor yang selalu menggunakan senjata untuk campur tangan dalam urusan negara lain. Hasil dari dua proses tersebut dapat dipahami sebagai konstruksi kepentingan nasional Rusia. Yang kedua adalah respon Rusia dalam menghadapi sanksi-sanksi Aliansi Barat adalah dengan menggunakan diplomasi publik. terdapat dua tujuan dari diplomasi publik Rusia. Tujuan yang pertama adalah nation branding yaitu mempromosikan Rusia kepada audien asing. Tujuan yang kedua adalah untuk konter persepsi publik.

---

This study aims to analyze the integration of Crimea into Russia in 2014 and Russia's response to the sanctions of the Western Alliance. The focus of the problem to be discussed in this study is the process of policy reconstruction Russia accepts Crimea joining Russia. The second issue is the Russian public diplomacy response in the face of sanctions provided by the Western Alliance. The focus of the actors who provide sanctions is only limited to sanctions provided by the European Union and the United States. The methodology focused in this study was in 2014-2015. The research method used in this thesis is a qualitative research method. The data used in this study are in official speeches and interviews with Russian Presidents, Prime Ministers and Foreign Ministers. The theory used in this study is the Jutta Weldes National Interest Theory. This theory is expected to be able to provide an explanation of the reasons for Russia's acceptance of Crimea to join Russia as a form of expansion of Russia's territory. The concept used in this research is the concept of public diplomacy. This concept is used to analyze Russia's attitude in facing sanctions imposed by the EU and the US as a form of Russian public diplomacy. In this thesis there are several results. The first is that researchers assume that Russian policies in Crimea are reconstructed through two processes, namely articulation and interpellation. Russia's articulation of events that took place in Ukraine was that Euromaidan was a coup. The expansion of NATO and European Union membership is an aggressive form of Western countries to spread their influence. Russia's position in the Ukraine crisis was as a central subject that had an identity as a state that protected interests without intervening. Meanwhile, the Western Alliance occupies the position of an aggressor who always uses weapons to intervene in the affairs of other countries. The results of the two processes can be understood as the construction of Russian national interests. The second is Russia's response to the sanctions of the Western Alliance is to use public diplomacy. There are two objectives of Russian public diplomacy. The first goal is nation branding, which is to promote Russia to a foreign audience. The second objective is to counter public perception."

"Vladimir Putin's intervention into the Georgia/​South Ossetia conflict in summer 2008 was quickly recognized by Western critics as an attempt by Russia to increase its presence and power in the "near abroad", or the independent states of the former Soviet Union that Russia still regards as its wards. Though the global economic recession that began in 2008 moved the incident to the back of the world's mind, Russia surged to the forefront again six years later when they invaded the heavily Russian Crimea in Ukraine and annexed it. In contrast to the earlier Georgia episode, this new conflict has generated a crisis of global proportions, forcing European countries to rethink their relationship with Russia and their reliance on it for energy supplies, as Russia was now squeezing natural gas from what is technically Ukraine. In Near Abroad, the eminent political geographer Gerard Toal analyzes Russia's recent offensive actions in the near abroad, focusing in particular on the ways in which both the West and Russia have relied on Cold War-era rhetorical and emotional tropes that distort as much as they clarify. In response to Russian aggression, US critics quickly turned to tried-and-true concepts like "spheres of influence" to condemn the Kremlin. Russia in turn has brought back its long tradition of criticizing western liberalism and degeneracy to grandly rationalize its behavior in what are essentially local border skirmishes. It is this tendency to resort to the frames of earlier eras that has led the conflicts to "jump scales," moving from the regional to the global level in short order. The ambiguities and contradictions that result when nations marshal traditional geopolitical arguments-rooted in geography, territory, and old understandings of distance-further contributes to the escalation of these conflicts. Indeed, Russia's belligerence toward Georgia stemmed from concern about its possible entry into NATO, an organization of states thousands of miles away. American hawks also strained credulity by portraying Georgia as a nearby ally in need of assistance. Similarly, the threat of NATO to the Ukraine looms large in the Kremlin's thinking, and many Ukrainians themselves self-identify with the West despite their location in Eastern Europe"