우크라이나 전쟁이 러시아의 북극 정책에 미친 영향

서승현,양정훈 배재대학교 한국-시베리아센터 2024 한국시베리아연구 Vol.28 No.3

전통적으로 러시아는 지리적, 경제적 및 군사적 이유로 인해 북극 지역에 대하여 많은 관심을 보여 왔다. 현재 러시아의 북극 정책은 국제정치와 경제에 큰 영향을 미치며, 북극 지역의 자원 개발, 환경 보호, 해상 안보 등 다양한 분야에서 여러 이해관계자들 간의 협력과 갈등을 형성하고 있다. 러시아는 북극 해안 지역에서의 군사적 및 경제적 활동을 증가시키고 있으며, 이에 따라 북극 지역 내 군사기반을 강화하고 새로운 항로와 기반시설을 개발하는 노력을 보여주었다. 그러나 2014년부터 시작되어 2022년 2월 전면전으로 번진 러시아-우크라이나 전쟁은 러시아의 북극 정책에 많은 영향을 끼치고 있다. 본 논문은 2022년 2월 24일 러시아의 우크라이나 침공이 러시아의 북극 군사 전략에 어떤 영향을 미쳤는지, 그리고 이로 인해 러시아가 기존의 공식적인 북극전략에서 벗어났는지 여부를 조사하였다. 러시아의 북극전략을 2월 24일 이후 천연자원, 교통 인프라, 군사 안보, 국제 협력 분야에서 이루어진 공식 성명 및 활동과 비교하면 러시아 정부가 전쟁에도 불구하고 정책을 지속하려고 노력했음을 알 수 있다. 북극항로 개발 계획과 2022년 당시 북극이사회 의장국으로서의 지속적인 업무수행이 이를 증명한다. 이러한 시도에도 불구하고 침공과 그에 따른 제재가 러시아의 북극 활동에 많은 영향을 미쳤다. 천연자원과 관련하여 서방의 제재는 러시아 북극 에너지 프로젝트를 방해하고 러시아가 새로운 구매자와 투자자를 찾도록 강요했다. 운송 인프라의 경우, 우크라이나 전쟁이라는 변수로 인해 인프라 개발이 동방으로 향하는 동시에 외국 장비 및 공급업체에 대한 접근을 제한함으로써 조선 산업의 개발이 늦춰졌다. 전쟁이 러시아 북극의 군사 전략에 어떤 영향을 미쳤는지 정확히 파악하기는 어렵지만, 이 전쟁으로 인해 이 지역에서 러시아의 위협 인식이 고조되고 외국 해군 활동에 대한 러시아의 통제가 강화되었다는 결론을 내릴 수 있다. 반면에 침공의 영향은 대부분의 활동이 중단된 국제 북극 협력에서도 볼 수 있다. 그럼에도 불구하고 러시아는 여전히 가능한 한 많은 활동을 수행하기 위해 노력하고 있다. 또한 러시아 정부는 금융, 기술 및 과학 등 러시아 북극 개발에 필수적인 모든 분야에서 서방 국가를 대체할 파트너를 찾기 위해 동방을 집중적으로 탐색하고 있다. 전쟁은 그 자체로 비용이 많이 드는 일이며 러시아연방 북극지역의 개발을 더 어렵게 하고 있다. 문제는 모스크바가 새로운 파트너의 도움이나 국가 자금 지원을 통해 북극전략을 계속 추진할 수 있을지 아니면 전쟁으로 인해 속도를 늦추거나 정책을 중단해야만 할 것인지에 대한 여부이다. 그리고 러시아와 우크라이나의 군사적 충돌이 그 규모와 기간, 결과를 예측하기 어려운 상황에서 북극 협력 분위기로 회귀할 수 있을지에 대한 명확한 답은 없다. 다만, 북극의 세계사적 중요성과 역사적 협력 경험을 바탕으로 볼 때, 덜 정치화된 과학과 식량 분야에서의 협력은 여전히 가능할 것으로 보인다. Traditionally, Russia has been interested in the Arctic region for geographical, economic, and military reasons. Currently, Russia’s activities in the Arctic include territorial expansion, resource exploitation, sea route development, and military buildup. Russia’s Arctic policy has a significant impact on international politics and economics, shaping cooperation and conflict between various stakeholders in the Arctic region in areas such as resource development, environmental protection, and maritime security. Russia has increased its military and economic activities in the Arctic coastal regions, demonstrating its commitment to strengthening its military infrastructure and developing new routes and infrastructure in the Arctic region. However, the Russian-Ukrainian war, which began in 2014 and escalated to all-out war in February 2022, has had a significant impact on Russia’s Arctic policy. This paper examines how Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022 has affected Russia’s Arctic military strategy and whether it has caused Russia to deviate from its previous official Arctic strategy. Comparing Russia’s Arctic strategy with its official statements and activities in the areas of natural resources, transportation infrastructure, military security, and international cooperation since February 24, Russian government has tried to continue its policies despite the war. This is evidenced by its plans to develop the Northern Sea Route and its continued work as chair of the Arctic Council in 2022. Despite these attempts, the invasion and subsequent sanctions affected Russia’s Arctic activities. With regard to natural resources, Western sanctions have hampered Russian Arctic energy projects and forced Russia to look for new buyers and investors. In terms of transportation infrastructure, the Russia-Ukraine War has forced infrastructure development eastward, while also slowing the development of the shipbuilding industry by restricting access to foreign equipment and suppliers. While it is difficult to determine exactly how the war has affected Russia’s military strategy in the Arctic, it can be concluded that it has heightened Russia’s threat perception in the region and tightened Russian control over foreign naval activity. On the other hand, the impact of the invasion can also be seen in international Arctic cooperation, where most activities have come to a standstill. Nevertheless, Russia is still trying to carry out as many activities as possible. The government is also intensively looking eastward to find partners to replace Western countries in all areas essential to the development of the Russian Arctic: finance, technology, and science. The war is costly in its own right and makes development of the Russian Arctic more difficult. The question is whether Moscow can continue to pursue its Arctic strategy with the help of new partners or state funding, or whether the war will force the strategy to slow down or suspend. Moscow is clearly very keen to maintain the continuity as possible in its Arctic strategy, even at a time of great international pressure. However there is no clear answer to the question of whether a return to an atmosphere of Arctic cooperation will be possible given that the scale, duration, and outcome of the military conflict between Russia and Ukraine is difficult to predict. Then, based on the Arctic’s global importance and historical experience of cooperation, it is likely that less politicized cooperation in science and food is still possible.

Russia and North Korea’s Second Nuclear Crisis

주승호 사단법인 한국평화연구학회 2008 평화학연구 Vol.9 No.4

Putin sought to make a dent in resolving North Korea’s nuclear crisis. In the process, Russia sought to cultivate its image as an honest broker, mediator, or facilitator. This article examines Russian policy on the second crisis over North Korea’s nuclear issue. Specifically, the research raises the following questions and tries to answer them: What role has Russia played at the six-party talks? What is Russia’s policy on North Korea’s nuclear weapons program? What are Russia’s contributions to the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula? With the convening of the six-party talks in 2003, Russia acquired the first opportunity to make its imprint on North Korea’s nuclear issue. Russia facilitated dialogue and offered suggestions for compromise. Russia at the same time exerted a moderating influence on both the U.S. and North Korea, constantly urging them to return to the negotiating table whenever the talks stalled and patiently reminding them to take into consideration the other side’s concerns and needs during negotiation. North Korea’s denuclearization and peaceful resolution of North Korea’s nuclear crisis coincide with Russia’s interests. Russia’s influence in the six-party talks has been indirect and marginal. The U.S. and the DPRK were the principal actors in this showdown and the DPRK as a host and mediator played a key role in inducing agreements. Putin sought to make a dent in resolving North Korea’s nuclear crisis. In the process, Russia sought to cultivate its image as an honest broker, mediator, or facilitator. This article examines Russian policy on the second crisis over North Korea’s nuclear issue. Specifically, the research raises the following questions and tries to answer them: What role has Russia played at the six-party talks? What is Russia’s policy on North Korea’s nuclear weapons program? What are Russia’s contributions to the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula? With the convening of the six-party talks in 2003, Russia acquired the first opportunity to make its imprint on North Korea’s nuclear issue. Russia facilitated dialogue and offered suggestions for compromise. Russia at the same time exerted a moderating influence on both the U.S. and North Korea, constantly urging them to return to the negotiating table whenever the talks stalled and patiently reminding them to take into consideration the other side’s concerns and needs during negotiation. North Korea’s denuclearization and peaceful resolution of North Korea’s nuclear crisis coincide with Russia’s interests. Russia’s influence in the six-party talks has been indirect and marginal. The U.S. and the DPRK were the principal actors in this showdown and the DPRK as a host and mediator played a key role in inducing agreements.

러시아의 중앙아시아 에너지 자원에 대한 영향력: 현상유지와 변화 요인

이지은 한국외국어대학교(글로벌캠퍼스) 러시아연구소 2018 슬라브연구 Vol.34 No.2

In the 1990s, Russia was able to secure its monopolistic status in the Central Asian energy trade through the oil and gas pipelines constructed during the Soviet era. During those time, Russia was the only access of connecting Kazakhstan’s oil and Turkmenistan’s natural gas to major consumers, like the Europe, so the influence of Russia on energy resources was literally enormous. Russia's constructivist approach, based on the two times experiences of economic integration between Russia and Central Asia throughout the history and social and cultural affinity are also the major elements strengthening the Russia’s energy leverage over Central Asia. However, the influence of Russia on energy resources in Central Asia appeared to be gradually weakening from the mid-2000s. Attempts by Central Asian countries to diversify energy trade routes with countries other than Russia and Western/ Chinese entry into the Central Asian energy market have consequences to greatly shaking Russia's monopolistic position so far. Of course, in case of Kazakhstan, Russia's influence on Kazakh energy resources is still dominant because of its geographical location(sharing the border with Russia), economic linkages (especially oil and gas pipelines) and its population composition (Kazakhs and Russians mixed). However, Turkmenistan, a neutral country with a relatively single population composition (85% or more of Turkmen) without sharing borders with Russia, actively promoted the diversification of energy export countries and consequently reduced Russian influence quite greatly. Today, Russia appears to be aware of its changing status and diminished influence in the Central Asian energy sector and is trying to modify its strategy or focus on finding alternative targets. Therefore, it is more persuasive to prospect the Russia's energy leverage over Central Asia is likely to be checked and weakened due to the Central Asian domestic politics and various actors playing into the Central Asian energy sector. 1990년대 러시아는 소비에트 시기 구축된 유, 가스 수송관을 통해 중앙아시아 에너지 교역에서 독점적 위상을 쉽게 확보할 수 있었다. 당시 카자흐스탄 원유와 투르크메니스탄 천연가스를 주요 소비국으로 연결하는 유일한 통로는 러시아였기 때문에 중앙아시아 에너지 자원에 대한 러시아의 영향력은 실로 막대했다. 러시아-중앙아시아 간 두 차례에 걸친 경제통합 경험과 사회, 문화적 친화성을 바탕으로 추진된 러시아의 구성주의적 접근은 대 중앙아시아 에너지 레버리지를 더욱 견고하게 했다. 그러나 중앙아시아 에너지 자원에 대한 러시아아의 영향력은 2000년대 중반을 기점으로 전반적으로 약화되는 추세다. 국가 간 정도의 차이는 있지만 분명한 것은 러시아가 더 이상 과거처럼 중앙아시아 국가들과의 에너지 교류에서 압도적인 우위에 서있지 않다는 점이다. 또한 일방적으로 러시아에 유리한 에너지 교역을 이끌어 낼 수 있었던 에너지 레버리지는 과거에 비해 약화되고 있다. 이러한 변화의 배경에는 중앙아시아 국가들이 러시아 이외의 국가들과 에너지 수출선을 다각화하려는 시도, 서방과 중국의 중앙아시아 에너지 시장 진출로 그동안 러시아가 중앙아시아 에너지 교역에서 누렸던 독점적 위상을 크게 뒤흔든 점 등이 자리한다. 물론 카자흐스탄의 경우 지리적인 위치, 경제적 연계성(특히 유,가스 수송관), 인구 구성(카자흐인, 러시아인 혼재)등의 이유로 러시아의 카자흐 에너지 자원에 대한 영향력은 유지되고 있는 상태다. 그러나 러시아와 국경을 공유하지 않고 인구 구성도 비교적 단일(투르크멘인 85% 이상)한 중립국 투르크메니스탄은 에너지 수출선 다각화를 적극적으로 추진하여 러시아의 영향력을 크게 감소시켰다. 오늘날 러시아는 중앙아시아 에너지 시장에서의 자국의 변화된 위상과 영향력에 대해 인지하고 기존 전략을 수정하거나 대체 시장 모색에 주력하는 모습이다. 중앙아시아 국내 정치와 다양한 역내 행위자들의 중앙아시아 에너지 부문으로의 진출은 결과적으로 러시아의 에너지 레버리지를 견제, 약화할 것이라는 전망이 현재로서는 설득력을 얻고 있다.

북핵문제에 대한 주변국의 입장과 정책 ; 러시아의대북정책과과제: 푸틴시대를 중심으로

최영훈 평화문제연구소 2003 통일문제연구 Vol.15 No.2

Since the ascension of President Vladimir Putin to power, the Korean peninsula has become a priority issue in Russia``s foreign policy. The Russian approach to Korean affairs became more rational and balanced. In the Putin era the Russian strategy in Korea is directed at the creation of a balance of interests for all the parties concerned, in order to build a solid foundation for peace and stability, and to provide room for cooperation in the name of economic prosperity. This tendency became obvious in 2000 after the signing of the new Russia-North Korea basic treaty. The crisis over the North Korean nuclear problem put the situation in Korea into the constant attention of the Russian leadership. The current situation is also different from that of the 1993-1994 nuclear crisis, when Russia played a secondary role. But in the situation of the present nuclear crisis Russia is positively playing efforts in the settlement of the North Korean problem. Russia proposed a package solution to the Korean problem on January 2003. The plan provides first of all for ensuring the nuclear-free status of the Korean peninsula, strict compliance with the Treaty on non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, and fulfilling all commitments resulting from other international dialogue between all interested parties, which is to guarantee North Korea``s security. The third condition is resumption of humanitarian and economic programs that funct! ioned on the Korean peninsula. Russia advocate a peaceful political and diplomatic way out of this crisis. This is Russia``s consistent standpoint on the problem. Russia``s the position remains unchanged and Moscow believes in a package solution. In sum, at present, Moscow has no instruments to influence North Korean Secretary General Kim jong-il. Russia could only consult the North Korean party. Russia connot render direct military support to North Korea as had been envisaged by the former agreement between North Korea and the USSR. Russia could influence North Korea policy if Moscow could guarantee security of North Korea. Yet it would not be wise or realistic to ignore the still-considerable political influence of Russia on Pyeongyang in the Putin era. To have more influence on the North Korean authorities in settling particular issues, Russia must closely co-operate with North Korea in many political and economic fields.

‘한ㆍ러 수교’ 이후의 한국 내 시베리아 지역 연구현황

김정훈 배재대학교 한국-시베리아센터 2011 한국시베리아연구 Vol.15 No.1

Last year was the 20th anniversary of Korea-Russia diplomatic relations, established on Sept 30, 1990. Under the titles “the 20th anniversary of Korea-Russia Diplomatic Relations', many diplomatic, economic, cultural and academic competition were carried out. The diplomatic relations between two countries have great influence over Korea's academic community. In fact, the fever of studying in Russia churned out numerous results. However, this external prosperity has raised several questions to us. ‘What will be the depth of our knowledge about Siberia in Russia, indeed?’ As, Korea-Russia Diplomatic Relations greets adolescence, beyond its 20th anniversary, I think it is necessary for us to agonize at least once, over the issues like ‘How are the direction and the trend to understand and study the identity of Siberia in Russia, progressing?. In this context, this thesis analyzes the number of the academic research results and the academic fields in Korea, regarding Siberia. The data was collected from 'Google (http://www.google.co.kr/)', the world's largest search site; 'Korea Research Information (http://kiss.kstudy. com), providing academic data in Korea; and the journals from Korea’s academic research institutes. And a priority was given to the academic journals. The key periods of the research results, which were contained in the collection of data, started from 1990 till 2010. When looking at collected data and the results from the analysis, the domestic researches about Siberian region in Russia have been primarily focusing on economic value, regional proximity, and political and economic cooperation with neighboring countries in Northeast Asia, etc. Meanings of area studies are truly vast, in the perspective of academic meaning and implications. Like the world becomes more complex in the aspects of politics, society, economy and culture, the regional studies which require academic links also become complex. I think that the model for correct area studies will be born. For studying a phenomenon, we do not need to focus on political trend only, even if it is a political event. The motivation of the incurred event has to be analyzed. It is because in the process of analysis, historical, social, cultural and economic reasons may be involved, or they may become the starting points of the events. The academic paradigm to integrate them and see the whole is needed. The correlation among them and also the researches regarding the diachronic status are important. This point should not be overlooked in the direction of domestic researches, regarding the Siberian region in Russia. 1990년 9월 30일 한국과 소비에트 연방이 맺은 수교가 지난해로 벌써 20주년을 맞이했다. 이에 따라 ‘한ㆍ러 수교 20주년’이라는 타이틀하의 각종 외교, 경제, 문화 및 학술대회가 이루어졌다. 양국의 수교는 한국의 학계에 지대한 영향을 주었다. 실제로 1990년대 러시아 유학 열풍은 적지 않은 수의 결과물을 양산해 냈다. 그러나 이러한 외향적 풍요로움은 우리에게 여러 가지 질문을 제기하고 있다. ‘과연 우리가 러시아 시베리아에 대해 알고 있는 정도의 깊이는 어느 정도일까?’ 아니 한 발 더 나아가 ‘러시아 시베리아의 정체성을 이해하고 연구하는 방향과 경향은 어떻게 진행되고 있는 것인가?’ 등의 문제를 ‘수교 20주년’을 넘어서 양국 간 교류의 청년기를 맞이하는 이즈음에 한번 고민해보아야 할 필요성이 있다는 생각을 해본다. 이런 맥락 하에 본 논문은 한국 내 시베리아 지역에 대한 학술 연구결과물의 수와 학문분야에 대한 분석을 시도해 보았다. 자료는 세계 최대 검색 사이트라 할 수 있는 ‘구글(http://www.google.co.kr/)’, 한국 내 학술 데이터를 제공하고 있는 사이트 ‘한국학술정보(http://kiss.kstudy.com)’ 그리고 한국 내 러시아 관련 학술연구기관의 학술지 등에 의해 수집되었으며, 주로 학술논문을 우선적으로 했다. 자료 수집에 포함된 연구결과물의 주요시기는 체제 붕괴 시점인 1990년을 기점으로 하여 2010년까지로 했다. 자료 취합과 분석 결과를 살펴보면 지금까지 러시아 시베리아 지역에 대한 국내에서의 연구는 대부분 경제적인 가치와 지역적인 근접성, 그리고 인근 동북아시아 국가들과의 정치경제적 협력 등에 초점이 맞추어져 왔다고 할 수 있다. 학문적 의미와 필요성에 있어서의 지역연구가 가지는 의미는 실로 방대하다. 정치적으로나 사회적으로나 역사, 경제, 문화적으로나 세계가 다양해지고 복잡해지듯이 학문적 고리가 필요한 지역연구 역시 복잡해지고 있다. 올바른 지역연구의 모델이 탄생하는 것은 아닐까라는 생각을 해본다. 하나의 현상을 연구하는데 있어서 정치적인 사건이라고 하여 정치적 동향만을 주목할 수은 없다. 그 사건이 발생하게 된 동기를 분석해야 하는데 그 분석 과정 속에 역사적, 사회적, 문화적, 경제적 이유가 관여되어 있거나 사건의 단초가 될 수 있기 때문이다. 이를 묶어서 하나를 온전하게 볼 수 있는 학문적 패러다임이 필요한 것이다. 이들의 상관관계와 종합적이고 통시적인 상황에 대한 연구 역시 매우 중요하다 할 것이다. 러시아 시베리아 지역에 대한 국내의 연구방향 역시 이 점을 간과해서는 안 될 것이다.

트럼프 정부 출범 이후 미-러 관계와 한국의 대러정책 지향

우평균 국방대학교 국가안전보장문제연구소 2018 국방연구 Vol.61 No.1

This article has a purpose to evaluate and foresee the phenomenon that why the prospect of US-Russia relationship is not be better than the past, and then to suggest the considerations for Korea’s policy toward Russia. US-Russia relations are more acrimonious than at any time since the end of the Cold war. US sanctions against Russia have been strengthened. The structural characteristics of American politics also deeply affected negatively to rapprochement between two countries. Nevertheless, a significant rapprochement between the United States and Russia is improbable if Trump will overcome the difficulties from the ‘Russia Scandal’. Korea’s foreign policy has to prepare the future with this tendency. Therefore, Korea need to respond the effect of interaction and collaboration that will change the current adversarial nature of US-Russia. Secondly, it is need to get support from Russia on the issue of North Korean nuclear program. Thirdly, restoring the previous partnership between Russia and US should affect to the cooperation between two Koreas and Russia, so it is need to review of the mega project. 본 논문은 2017년 1월 미국의 트럼프 정부 출범을 전후하여 나타나기 시기한 미국과 러시아 간 관계 개선에 대한 전망이 왜 기대와 달리 진전되지 않고 있는지, 이에 대한 평가와 전망을 하는 것을 1차적인 목적으로 하고 있다. 또한 미·러 관계의 진전 가능성과 현실에 대한 평가로부터 도출될 수 있는 의미를 한국 외교가 대러 관계와 관련하여 지향해야 할 점을 제시하고 있다. 트럼프 집권 이후 대러 관계는 국내 정치 스캔들이 비화하면서 미국 조야에서 대러 감정이 악화되었으며, 이를 반영하듯 미국의 대러 제재가 강화되었다. 이와 같은 상황적 요인 외에도 미국 정치의 구조적 특성에 의해 양국 관계가 전면적으로 개선되기 어려운 측면을 갖고 있다. 그럼에도 불구하고 트럼프 대통령이 스캔들을 둘러싼 의혹을 극복한다면 대러 정책은 탄력을 받을 가능성이 크며, 한국의 대외정책 역시 이점을 염두에 두고 대비할 필요가 있음을 지적할 수 있다. 이 점을 주시하면서, 한국 대외정책의 지향성은 다음과 같이 제시할 수 있다. 첫째, 미·러관계의 개선 효과에 대비하는 대응 전략이 필요하다. 둘째, 북핵문제에 대한 러시아의 역할을 긍정적으로 확보하는 노력이 요구된다. 셋째, 미·러관계의 개선이 남·북·러 3각 협력 사업에 미칠 효과에 대한 검토가 필요하다.

러시아의 동북아 에너지외교와 한국

우평균 아시아.유럽미래학회 2010 유라시아연구 Vol.7 No.1

This article has a purpose to analyze the characteristics of Russia's diplomacy toward Korea, Japan, and China, as main states of Northeast Asia. Russia's energy diplomacy toward Northeast Asia is recognized as a ardent issue, while the scope of Russia's diplomacy has been broadened to East Asia from the traditional region in her concerning, the Europe. Russia's Energy strategy and the export system to Northeast Asian states is connected deeply each other. Russia thinks strategically energy resources. Japan and China have been also considered energy resources as a strategic one as well as Russia, and it is evident that they have been established long term plan for energy supply. Energy strategy of Japan and China is mixed in the structure of geo-political axis, confrontation, competition, and concert in international relation. Russia wants to manage her leadership in negotiation with the other state through bilateral contact on energy cooperation and Russia also intends to participate directly in the management of mega project. Japan and China willing to aside from advantage of their country in the fields of import quarter and pipe line connection. Contrary to, Russia has to maximize her interests, using the nature of competition between Japan and China. Japan-China rivals is originated from supply system and that cooperation between Japan and China is difficult to make for it's competitive nature. Korea has to set her desirable role as a arbitrator among the major states, Russia, China, and Japan in Northeast Asia rather than making the states' cooperation frame. Russia as a single export state in energy sector in Northeast Asia has a vivid goal for achieving leadership with bilateralism in energy cooperation. If only Korea will try to negotiate through multilateralism, Korea should be surrounded by alienated atmosphere in Northeast Asia. It could be recognized rightly that Korean government has been tried for securing the multi energy market from abroad in 2000s. Nevertheless, Korea has to participate in the development of East Siberia as a common goods in global level, and has to consider positively the development of West Siberia which possesses abundant potential quantity in energy resources beyond the East Siberia and the construction of pipeline. For multifying and sharing the danger of investment, legally stable institutions are needed, transparency on burying quantity is guaranteed, technical difficulty is avoided, and the politicalization of energy business is has to evaded. And it is need to founding international consortium which is managed by foreign companies, the danger of energy projection has to evaded as a outcome of this, and international cooperation and common policies on this field has to be eschewed. At the same time, Korean government should strive to obtain the utmost cooperation of Russia in the various bilateral energy projects which are reciprocally beneficial to Russia and Korea. At last, the increasing of Korea's sharing the interests in energy export market in Northeast Asia is connected to trying to the possibilities and methods of excising energy development beyond potentiality. It is need to suggest that this point can provoke to establish action plan and long term blue print with the strategic thinking on energy resources.

러시아의 대 ASEAN 전략 양자관계의 발전과 러시아의 대외정책에서 ASEAN의 위치

윤영민 한국슬라브․유라시아학회 2024 슬라브학보 Vol.39 No.1

Russia and ASEAN are positioned within South Korea's foreign policy as targets of its northern and southern policies. However, domestic research on the relationship between Russia and ASEAN is not extensive. Particularly, studies on Russia's ASEAN policy are scarce. This study aims to fill this scholarly gap by tracing the development of Russia-ASEAN relations and analyzing the value ASEAN holds in Russia's foreign policy. To achieve this, changes in bilateral relations, institutional mechanisms, and economic ties are briefly examined. While ASEAN may not be a top priority in Russia's foreign policy agenda, its importance has been increasingly emphasized in Russia's regional aspirations and post-Ukrainian conflict foreign policy. ASEAN emerges as a significant partner for Russia in balancing relations with China and India, and it holds its own role and value in Russia's Greater Eurasian Partnership and New Eastern Policy. Based on these discussions, the study explores promising areas of cooperation such as energy resources, counterterrorism, and food security, to assess the direction of Russia's ASEAN cooperation policy. However, physical, institutional, and interpersonal connectivity issues hinder cooperation development between Russia and ASEAN. Addressing these obstacles and enhancing exchanges will require additional research and efforts.

러시아·중앙아시아 관계 -2015년 EAEU 창설 이후를 중심으로-

박상남 사단법인 코리아컨센서스연구원 2023 분석과 대안 Vol.7 No.3

The purpose of this study is to analyze Russia-Central Asia relations since the launch of the EAEU in 2015 and forecast the future from a structural realism perspective. Bilateral relations have both elements of close cooperation and elements of conflict. Russia and Central Asia, which have the characteristics of an authoritarian alliance, also have a symbiotic relationship in which they have no choice but to cooperate with each other to maintain the regime. Based on this, Russia has made various efforts to reunify Central Asia. Central Asia also has no choice but to cooperate with Russia for its survival, but at the same time, it has expanded its scope of cooperation in the international community to avoid being subjugated to Russia again. However, as China's power expands, Russia's relative weakness, and wariness toward Russia increases after the Ukraine War, the gap in bilateral relations is widening. In particular, as China's influence grows, Russia's nervousness also increases. This is why Putin visits Central Asia and holds active summit talks even during the war in Ukraine. If competition between Russia and China surfaces, there is a high possibility that the international order in Central Asia will become unstable. However, it is still unlikely that the power of Russia and China will reverse in Central Asia. Above all, the security, historical, and cultural connections between Russia and Central Asia are areas that are difficult for China to catch up with. Therefore, a weakening of Russia's influence compared to the past is inevitable, but its superiority is expected to continue. If Russia breaks away from belligerence and transforms into an attractive cooperative partner, there is a possibility that bilateral relations will take an upward turn again. However, it seems unlikely that such changes and innovations will occur under the Putin regime. Therefore, the biggest obstacle to realizing Putin's goal of reunifying Central Asia is Putin himself.

푸틴-아베 재집권(2012)이후 러·일 관계변화 동인과 전략적 함의

김정기 국가안보전략연구원 2017 국가안보와 전략 Vol.17 No.1

The purpose of this paper is to look at the backgrounds and intentions of both Russia and Japan in taking active moves to improve their bilateral relations through active summit diplomacy and economic cooperation, under the situations that western countries including US and even Japan keep imposing economic sanctions against Russia. Based on that, this paper suggests possible implications of these changes to Northeast Asia and Korean Peninsula. In particular, Russia and Japan, both countries can exert huge influence on building the East Asian order, and there are several situations that might tighten infraction security in the East Asian region, such as an increasing tension and conflict between US and Russia, an escalating US-China rivalry over the East Asian region, Russia’s return of geopolitics, Japan’s legislation for peace and security, and North Korea's nuclear and missile provocations. In this sense, it is important to predict what steps Russia and Japan would take in the future in terms of establishing stable order in the East Asian region, especially in the Korean Peninsula. Improvement of Russia-Japan relations requires both countries to adjust its own position by solving their territorial conflicts and their dilemmas over China in geopolitical aspects. Accordingly, the improved Russia-Japan relations would lead to following results: Improvement of both countries’ images in the East Asia, enhancement of US-Russia relations through Japan, counterbalance China, success of Russia’s Eastern policy, expansion of both countries’ influences in the Northeast Asian region, improvement of Japan’s strategic position, and promotion in development cooperation in the Far East and the Arctic. However, it should be kept in mind that Russia-Japan relations will be affected by US-Russia relations and US-China relations. Under these circumstances, Korea should be able to take advantage of the strengthened Russia-Japan relations in a way to foster the atmosphere for Korean Unification. In addition, Korea should have an exact understanding about the dynamics in the composition of the East Asian order in order to figure out possible strategies to strengthen its own position in the region. 이 글은 러·일이 미국 등 서방의 대러시아 경제제재가 지속되고 있고 일본도 경제제재에 참여하고 있는 상황에서 활발한 정상외교와 경제협력을 통해 관계개선에 적극 나서고 있어 그 배경과 의도, 동북아 및 한반도에 미칠 정책적 함의 등을 살펴보는 데 목적이 있다. 특히 양국이 동아시아 질서구축에 영향력이 큰 데다, 시기적으로 미·러간 대립 심화, 러시아의 지정학적 회귀, 일본의 안보법제 완료, 미·중간 질서 주도권 다툼 심화, 북한의 핵 및 미사일 도발 등으로 동아시아 역내 안보경색이 깊어지고 있는 상황에서 향후 어떤 행보를 보일지를 가늠하는 것은 역내 정세안정 여부와 함께 한반도에 중요한 의미가 있다고 본다. 러·일의 관계강화는 영토문제 타결 등 국익·안보 측면에서 서로 조율이 필요한데다 양국 모두 중국 딜레마를 해소해야 하는 지정학적 전략 구상과 맞닿아 있으며, 결과적으로 동아시아 역내 위상 제고, 중국에 대한 견제, 일본을 통한 러시아의 대미 관계 개선, 러시아의 동방정책 성공과 동북아 영향력 확대, 일본의 전략적 위상 강화 등을 가능케 하고 극동·북극 지역 개발협력을 촉진시킬 것으로 보인다. 그러나 미러 및 미중 관계 수준에 따라 영향을 받게 될 것이라는 점도 염두에 두어야 한다. 한국으로서는 러·일 관계 강화를 한반도 통일여건 조성에 활용하고, 역내 역학구도 변화 흐름을 정확히 파악하여 우리의 입지를 보다 강화시킬 전략적 방안을 강구해 나가야 한다.