فرهنگ راهبردی

Despite the existence of many issues in the relations between the Russian Federation and the United States, the crisis of 2022 in Ukraine is one of the important axes that during the recent period not only caused Washington and Moscow to face each other again, but its scope has gone beyond the national territory and has become an important issue in regional interactions and International has made a converter, the authors of this study have tried to answer the question of what effect the components of strategic culture have on the behavior patterns of Russian statesmen with a qualitative method and a descriptive-analytical approach. And the American in response to the crisis in Ukraine 2022? The hypothesis raised in front of the mentioned question points out that the conflict between the two countries in the Ukrainian scene can be considered strongly influenced by the cultural, value, geopolitical and historical foundations of the two countries, and based on this, war, resort to force, deterrence and strategy Meaning has been found. The findings of the research indicate that in the Ukraine crisis, the dream of great power and the return to the glory of the empire, geopolitical issues, negative attitude towards the intentions of rival activists, traditions related to the Orthodox Church and Russian nationalism, in contrast to the belief in the absolute power of the United States in the field of politics and International relations, and the continuation of the war until the unconditional surrender of the enemy have been placed

This paper, by studying the nature of "cultural security", will explain this concept theoretically from the perspective of the conceptual relationship between culture and security. The assumption of the article is that cultural security cannot be understood as a concept or even a phenomenon, unless you recognize and represent the different layers of the conceptual relationship between "culture" and "security". In response to this main question, the conceptual processing of this article shows that the elements and components that form and constitute security are mainly cultural. Elements and components such as mental, linguistic, semantic, discursive, conceptual, perceptual, emotional, psychological and moral aspects of security are among these and without them, the development, change and continuation of security will be impossible. In this article, after defining the concepts of culture and security in the introduction, the author will discuss the different aspects of the conceptual relationship between culture and security with an emphasis on culture as an independent variable. As a result of this processing, the author, as the hypothesis of the article, in four specific proportions; like "culture as one of the dimensions and parts of security"; "Culture as a referential subject of security"; "Culture as the shape of the security environment" and "Culture as a source of security threats" have been mentioned.

In late 2021, Western intelligence services began issuing warnings about Moscow's readiness to invade Ukraine, although Russian elites, including Putin, denied the claim. But to the dismay of observers and the concern of Western nations, he ordered an invasion in February 2022. At first, this action was supposed to be a short and decisive operation with the aim of overthrowing the Zelenskyi government. But the field calculations were wrong and Moscow admitted that every war has its own path and does not necessarily follow the pre-planned path and the plan of the military commanders. The 2022 Russian war on Ukraine sparked different and even contradictory analyses. Some believe that because of NATO's eastward expansion and Ukraine's desire to join this security alliance, the Kremlin is opposed to any option except war. Other scholars believe that Putin attacked Ukraine because of Moscow's strong desire to be recognized and respected as a "great power" or because of elements of Russia's strategic culture. Other studies have focused on Putin's personal characteristics and ambitions as the main source of the attack.  This article examines the role of Putin's perceptions and miscalculations in relation to the issue of war. 

The key question of the study is: How have Putin’s misperceptions affected his policy towards Kyiv? There are also a few minor questions, such as: How Putin understands the international position of Russia and its relations with other countries, and how he perceives the intentions of other great powers.

This study hypothesizes that Putin's misperceptions of Russia's military might, Ukraine's will and power to resist, his misperception of Ukraine's intentions and his misunderstanding of the reactions of third parties critically contributed to and precipitated his decision to go to war.

To determine the main variables of the research, a conceptual framework, based on the findings of some key scholars of the psychology of International Politics, namely Jack Levy and Martin White, has been adopted. According to the conceptual framework, 3 main categories of misperceptions play an important role in leading countries to war: 1) Misperception of oneself and enemy’s military capabilities; 2) Misperception on the enemy’s intentions and the degree of its animosity, and 3) Misperception on the intentions and reactions of the third parties. The second tier of the conceptual framework includes two key elements of Russian strategic culture, “fear” and “arrogance” which according to Martin White, are the main elements of a war. All of these factors could pave the way for a costly and all-out war. To investigate the role of these factors in the 2022 war in Ukraine, the research method of qualitative content analysis has been used. Directed qualitative content analysis, unlike conventional inductive approaches, is a comparative research approach.  In this method, the researcher uses the existing theory and literature to determine the key concepts and variables. Based on those concepts and variables, the researcher begins to collect, code, decode and analyze the data. In the current study, according to the variables of the conceptual framework, the author has directly and indirectly pointed out Putin's views in this field in order to extract his possible misconceptions about Ukraine crisis. In collecting information related to Putin's words, the writer has referred to the interviews and documents published by the Russian Foreign Ministry. To strengthen the reliability of the research, the findings of the existing literature have also been examined. The collected data has been coded, decoded and analyzed in the conceptual framework.

Cognitive and psychological factors have played a significant role in creating the ground for the war in Ukraine. There is some evidence that highlights the role of the misperceived Russian elites, mainly Putin, in the war against Kyiv. These misconceptions are: 1) Misunderstanding of Ukraine's own and military capabilities, a) overestimating Moscow’s military capabilities and b) underestimating Ukraine's military capabilities 2) Misperception on the intentions of Kyiv; including a) Overestimating the animosity and evil intentions of Ukraine, and b) Underestimating the enemy’s will and courage to resist and 3) Misunderstanding of EU and US response to ongoing events, mainly underestimating their harsh and long-term response. These misconceptions, combined with two key elements of Russian strategic culture, fear and arrogance, led Russia to escalate the crisis into an all-out war. These findings contribute to the literature by articulating a meaningful conceptual framework.  Combining cognitive factors with elements of Russian strategic culture can be useful for explaining some fascinating and illusory issues of Russian foreign policy.

Russia invaded Ukraine for a variety of reasons. Geopolitical, geo-economics, geo-strategic and even geo-cultural factors played a role in pushing Moscow on the path to war. These factors had taken roots for a long time and didn’t appear suddenly. The findings of this paper help to explain why Putin chose the war path despite previous restraints. Elements of Russia's strategic culture highlighted Moscow's perceived threats and called for an immediate response. In the process of orchestrating a credible and decisive response to threats, elements of this misperception helped significantly to convince Putin that the time had come for a military strike. The role of these misconceptions in the form, tactics, and objectives of the initial mobilization of Russian forces is quite clear. In short, Putin and other military elites’ misperceptions, along with fear and arrogance, paved the way for his war in Ukraine.

Strategic culture is one of the most important factors that affect the foreign policy and defense / security policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran.However, the relationship between Strategic culture and the foreign policy and defense-security policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran is an issue that requires analysis and research.Religion, history and historical experiences (especially contemporary history and Iraq-Iran war), geography and geopolitics, the international system, economy and oil, and society and national identity are the major sources of the strategic culture of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The mechanism of influence of these resources is also through the creation of features or coordinates in the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran, such as; Supporting Muslims and Shiites , independence, resistance, justice, expediency, national defense and deterrence, distrust of foreigners, strategic patience, and so on. In fact, the sources of the strategic culture of the Islamic Republic of Iran have created characteristics or components in the foreign policy and security / defense policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and these characteristics are considered as characteristics of the foreign and security / defense policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran. In this article, after examining the concept of strategic culture in the form of constructivist theory, the quantity and quality of resources and the effects of the strategic culture of the Islamic Republic of Iran are discussed.

The concept of strategic culture has been used in the field of international relations, foreign policy and national security. There are several definitions of strategic culture but there is still no agreement on a definition that is universally accepted by researchers and policy makers. However, in most definitions, it is agreed that strategic culture is the product of a country's geography, history and shared narratives that shape its dominant worldview and guide its response to challenges and threats.Strategic culture has emerged as an alternative perspective in international relations due to the inability of realism and neorealism theories to explain the behavior of governments during the Cold War. In its development, there are three generations of strategic culture thinkers that have different understanding of this concept. In the first generation, strategic culture is a perspective to analyze how a state behaves in the face of threats. In the second generation, strategic decisions are based on the attitudes and beliefs of leaders whereas the third generation, strategic decisions are based on the system of symbols that develop in a state. The perspective of strategic culture believes that internal factors such as geopolitical situation, historical experiences, political culture and ideology determine the performance of a government and response to challenges. Although it is closely related to the military aspect, the perspective of strategic culture explains the government's behavior in response to the new nature of threats that have arisen because of globalization, including terrorism and cultural conflicts. The purpose of this article is to analyze the strategic culture of Iran and Russia and its effect on the relations between the two countries.Russia's strategic culture comes from the intersection of political, military and economic culture. It is rooted in the geographic and spiritual parameters of Russian history. Geopolitics, authoritarianism, pragmatism and global responsibility are sources of Russia's strategic culture. Political behavior and military strategy of Iran is shaped by its strategic culture which is influenced by that country’s religious and political ideology, geography, historical roots and international / regional environment. Specifically, Shi’ism is an important component in Iran’s foreign policy decisions. Historical experiences dating back to centuries ago left a legacy of a deep sense of strategic isolation and foreigners had repeatedly invaded insecurity for Iranians, as their land. The final strategic goals of Iran are to maintain national sovereignty, achieve long-term cultural, political, economic and military development and strengthening its role and influence as a regional and global power considering Iran's size, capabilities and historical experience.Research Question: What effect has strategic culture had on bilateral and regional relations between Iran and Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union?Research Hypothesis: The strategic culture has prevented the creation of a model of stable interaction and strategic relations between Iran and Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

This article examines Iran-Russia relations in the framework of theoretical foundations of strategic culture with Qualitative method and in-depth analytical approach.

A key element of Russia's strategic culture is its long history of war and troubled relations with the West. The revivals of Eurasianism, near abroad policy and increasing its military power have been a response to its perceived vulnerability in the world and towards the West in particular. Strategic ambiguity, deterrence and pragmatism are the basis of Iran's actions in the framework of strategic culture. Geopolitics, pragmatism, historical experiences and deterrence against the West are common components of the strategic culture of Iran and Russia. In order to understand the strategic culture of the two countries, military and foreign policy doctrines, as well as the attitude of their leaders and officials should be taken into consideration. Analyzing the relations between Iran and Russia in the framework of strategic culture provides the possibility of pathology of relations and formulation of a comprehensive strategy and regulation of neighborhood policy to ensure national interests and security.

According to the strategic culture components of Iran and Russia, the two countries have different perceptions of strategic relations. Relations between Iran and Russia have been described as a rapprochement based on cautious partnership. Contrary to Iran’s strategic culture, Russia's strategic culture is aggressive in nature. The threat of the West has provided the basis for the rapprochement of the positions of Iran and Russia, but the anti-American positions do not create a basis for the cooperation of the two countries. According to the discourse of the Islamic Revolution, establishing strategic relations with Iran creates a challenge for Russia's interests in the Middle East. Russia's priority is relations with countries that take advantage of their geopolitical position and political and military capacity to interact with the West. Therefore, Iran and Russia consider each other as temporary allies in order to achieve their goals, interests and repel threats. Realism and separation of interests is a prerequisite for creating a model of sustainable interaction between the two countries.

Strategic culture as a cohesive system of symbols that creates long-term and pervasive strategic preferences through the formulation of concepts and maps and the effectiveness of military forces in political affairs between states. In view of this hypothesis, the authors of the present work seek to answer the fundamental question of how China's strategic culture appendages build constructive convergent and divergent policies in the East Asian country by studying and evaluating Chinese criteria, sources, and documents related to the category of strategic culture. Has it affected Iran?

The Syrian crisis 2013 - 2020 has become one of the most acute crises in the Middle East. It has various levels, including its domestic roots, the role of regional actors, and global powers. Israel is one of the regional powers that has set unique and distinct goals compared to other powers. The purpose of this article is to explain the cultural foundations of the regime's involvement in the various stages of the Syrian crisis. The paper's main question is: "what basis has Israel been involved in the Syrian crisis 2013 - 2020?" The paper's hypothesis is as follows: "Israel's strategic behavior in the Syrian crisis is due to its strategic culture components such as seclusion in the security environment, survival under threat, and confrontational dogmatism." The article's findings show that the components of strategic culture have shaped the strategic behaviors and then Israeli strategic practices in Syria. Accordingly, it has carried out widespread preventive and pre-emptive attacks to balance military advantage in the Syrian sovereignty, particularly against the goals of its Syrian allies, including the Islamic Republic of Iran. The data of this article were collected in a library manner and processed by the qualitative method.

Turkey's increasing tendency to pursue strategies independent of Western its allies and its proximity to Eastern powers in securing and defensive goals, as well as its active regional involvement in challenging the security preferences of Western powers, has raised the question of whether Turkey's international orientations are on a pivotal path or just looking to rebuild its foreign policy in a new international and regional environment? This paper, by conceptualizing Turkey's strategic attitudes and providing a framed picture of the new developments in the country's strategic culture and national security doctrine, rethinks the prevailing ideas of a pivotal turn in Turkey's macro-foreign policy orientation. In this regard, the new strategic culture of Turkey, with emphasis on the principle of self-help and national capabilities, increasingly seeks to ensure strategic independence from Western allies in the context of the international system transition. This does not necessarily mean leaving the transatlantic alliance, but rather balancing relations with the West and the East in order to consolidate Turkey's strategic position as an independent international actor.

The strategic area of Central Eurasia is one of the most important regions in the post-Soviet space, accepting the rivalry between the Russian Federation and the United States, and has introduced itself as a mirror of international politics. Regarding the strategic culture of Moscow’s foreign policy, it can be said that since the Russian Federation does not want to fully maintain the basic rules of the international system, nor does it seek to make extensive changes to the rules of this order, hence the idea of “reformist” activism Comes to mind. Reform activists are actors who pursue different motives and methods than other actors in international politics. The Russian Federation, as a reformist power, has on its agenda the two principles of peaceful coexistence and the creation of a multipolar world in its new foreign policy. In this context, the Russian Federation, on the one hand, does not reject any change in the status quo and intervention abroad (Central Asia, South Caucasus, Black Sea, and Baltic), and on the other, is dissatisfied with the current state of the international system and wants a complete transformation. It is not in the rules that govern it either.As for the United States’ movements in the geographical territory of Central Eurasia, it can be said that Washington generally seeks to sign bilateral and multilateral military agreements with Georgia, Ukraine, Romania, and the Czech Republic, following political intervention and attempts to bring the republics of the region under its security umbrella. In this regard, Poland is trying to move forward and most importantly, is building several anti-missile defense systems in the frame of NATO expansion. Although the White House has claimed that the purpose of the missile defense shield is to protect the United States and NATO members from North Korea’s threats and the Islamic Republic of Iran’s ballistic missiles, nevertheless the Kremlin sees it as a serious threat to its national security. Moscow is very serious and determined in its position and constantly declares that the justification of the United States for the establishment of a missile defense shield is a mere excuse for the blockade of the Russian Federation. The Russian Federation considers the United States moves in this regard an attempt to achieve “strategic superiority” and to play with the result of a zero-sum game, which is targeted at the same time as weakening strategic depth, geopolitical contraction, and Moscow’s exclusion from European arrangements. From the above-mentioned points, it can be concluded that the main issues affecting the political-security relations between the Russian Federation and the United States are mutual threats and suspicions, successive and endless cycles of de-escalation, and involvement of various internal and external variables in the current process between the two countries which shows the complexity and multi-layered nature of this conflict.The Main Question is: what impact has the strategic culture and its components had on the actions of the Russian Federation and the United States in the Central Eurasian region in the last two decades?The Hypothesis posed by the above-mentioned question is that strategic culture serves as a driving force behind Moscow’s post-Soviet actions, including components such as strategic expansionism, the spread of Orthodox identity and the Russian nationalist discourse, and the consolidation of national power in the environment. In contrast, the United States has developed a special strategic culture to promote a culture of liberal democracy, establish a superpower position and create regional balance.The method used in this research is explanatory-prescriptive and the type of the research is fundamental. The nature of this writing is also qualitative. The data collection has been through the library method, the use of internet resources, articles, and documents.Analyzing the strategic behaviors of political units through the components of strategic culture has advantages the most important of which is the possibility of understanding the actions of the actor in question and predicting the behaviors arising from it. The theory makes it possible for researchers to understand how countries view strategic issues and what reactions they emit in a variety of situations, even in emergencies. Regarding strategic culture, it should be noted that this component is the product of the historical experience of countries. On the other hand, because experiences are different among governments, different actors have different strategic cultures. In this way, it can be said that the strategic culture acts as a magnifying glass through which the type of relationship between the international goals, motives, and actions of the Russian Federation and the United States can be evaluated and examined in the management of international crises.As mentioned at the beginning of the research, the most important components of the Russian Federation’s strategic culture include geopolitical features and a development view, the idea of great power and regional hegemony, dominant authoritarianism, Russian nationalist discourse, and Slavic-Orthodox identity, and the notion of threat. They have left a deep impression on the strategic decision-making and foreign policy of the Russian Federation. In other words, it can be said that Moscow, in articulating its foreign policy discourse and strategic decision-making, has relied on the above-mentioned components. Accordingly, the Russian Federation in the field of foreign policy has strategies such as selective interaction, soft balance and an emphasis on multilateralism, the great normative modern strategy, eastward policy, confrontation with fundamentalism and terrorism, and Russian-oriented political and security institutionalism in the region which has made the headline of its work. Regarding the strategic culture of the United States, it must be acknowledged that to achieve the goals that have been formed under the influence of its strategic culture, it seeks hegemony and consolidation of its power in the world. In this regard, the United States has a mission to lead the world and is committed to global governance. In the meantime, if the country resorts to military force, it will inevitably use it. As a result, it can be said that the components that shape the strategic culture of the United States are aggressive, which is effective in pursuing its aggressive foreign policy in the strategic context of Central Eurasia.

With the domination of the International System and Western civilization since 1500 AD, the ancient Eastern Civilizations have had similar experiences of marginalization.The reproduction of similar elements in the Strategic Cu lt u re of these civilizations has led to a common demand to return to their former role and place in the International System. The main question is what factors led to the rapprochement of the ancient revisionist Eastern civilizations and the formation of the Eastern Historical-Civilizational Bloc in the international system?The overall result of the study shows that the war of ancient civi li z a ti o n, marginalization and similar strategic culture between Iranian, Chinese and Russian civilizations has led to the formation of the historical-civ iliz a ti o n al bloc of the East, which seeks to create Eastern and Western Bounded Order against the Western International Order. The method used in this paper is de s c riptive-analytical and its theoretical framework is based on the theory of the C lash of Civilizations by Samuel Huntington and the Critical Theory of Robert Cox.

Political elites of different strategic cultures, in similar situations in the international arena, practice different foreign policy behavior. In fact, different norms in the strategic culture of governments cause different perceptions of similar realities. Accordingly, the norms that shape the strategic culture of the Iranian political elite influence the foreign policy behavior of the country. The question, however, is how the foreign policy behavior of the Islamic Republic of Iran is affected by strategic culture. The main question of this article is how has the political culture of the political elite influenced the foreign policy of Iran? The researchers hypothesize that the specific norms of the political elite's strategic culture have shaped the national role of the mission-oriented state for the IR, and accordingly, have followed the behavioral indices of independence, transnationalism and revisionism in Iranian foreign policy. The theoretical framework of this paper is a combination of constructivism theory and strategic culture approach and has used qualitative deductive content analysis to understand the strategic culture of the IRI political elite.

Experience shows that countries with similar international status but different cultural traditions do not make decisions in the same manner as each other in the face of new developments. The reason is strategic culture provides a system of values in the field of decision-making, which affects a country's foreign policy. This article is an attempt to answer how strategic culture influences foreign policy decisions of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The authors assume that the Islamic Republic's strategic culture influences its foreign policy decisions through defining an Iranian-Islamic identity and specific national roles.

This paper examine the impact of strategic culture of the Zionist regime on its military strategy.  The Zionist regime occupied Islamic lands especially after 1967 war and threatened them with a military strike repeatedly. The Zionist regime has used a definite and consistent military strategy as if we were facing a steady pattern of thinking and action on the military strategy of the regime. Hence, this paper seeks to examine the reason for adopting this specific military strategy from a different perspective on military attitudes. The present article believes that the reason for the adoption of a certain military strategy by the Zionist regime should be sought in cultural factors, especially the strategic culture of Zionist regime. Accordingly, the present article first explores the role of strategic culture in adopting a style of war. Then the elements and components of the strategic culture of the Zionist regime are expressed and are shown finally the impact of these cultural components on the military strategy of the Zionist regime.

Strategic culture is a coherent system of symbols that generates the long-term and inclusive strategic preferences through formulating the concepts, roles and effectiveness of the military forces in the political affairs between governments; in fact, strategic culture is a social thinking-oriented environment that limits the behavioral choices. Strategic culture seeks to explain this matter that why countries with similar material structures select different strategies? In this context and regarding the increasing influence of culture in the field of security studies, the discussion of strategic culture was raised. The question of this research is: What are the factors and features of strategic culture of I.R. of Iran? This research which is a developmental study has been done using the documentary-library and field study methodology. The statistical population of this research has been selected on the basis of a selective (non-occasional) method from among the experts in the field of "international relations", "some research centers and university professors in Tehran". The sample size of this study is 50 individuals. Questionnaires were used to elicit answer to the research questions. Content validity method was used to determine its validity. The findings of this study confirm the factors and features of the author regarding strategic culture of I.R. of Iran. The statistical findings indicate that the features of "inspiration", "interoperability without unilateral dependence", "distrust to foreigners," "avoiding bellicosity and emphasizing peace and security," "self-reliance," "human power and morale," "faith in God, providence and martyrdom", "Threat-orientedness"," The unique presence of people in defense condition", "internal integrity in defense condition", "People's recognition of enemy", "people's higher tolerance threshold", and "having self-esteem" statistically had a higher average than social and welfare levels.

Iran’s strategic culture in the immediate post-revolution era, i.e., the first decade after the formation of the Islamic Republic, is highly reflected in and influenced by the late leader of the Revolution, Imam Khomeini, as the major decision-maker in the country. This article seeks to discover the main components and features of Iran’s strategic culture in this period through a study of thirty three speeches of Imam Khomeini. These speeches are analyzed in order to show the cognitive map of Imam Khomeini. It is assumed that this cognitive map can reveal the connections among various factors that would lead to peace and security. The map shows a distinctive approach to threat and defense. Although components such as emphasis on national power, military strength, national spirit, and popular support are more conventional, elements such as the will of God, martyrdom-seeking, justice-seeking, and the like give this culture a particular distinctiveness. It is argued that this distinctiveness can be seen as a basis for an Iranian theory of security.

Describing the dominant patterns of Iran-U.S relations after triumph of the Islamic revolution and even explanation of current situation between the two states through conventional foreign policy and international politics will lead to inefficient and inadequate researches. Although describing the historical facts and using realistic analyses to explain current non war- non peace situation are beneficent, but could not elucidate continuity of hostility situation between Iran and the United States. Analysis of this Iran-U.S extensive conflict and hostility requires focusing on material structures of power and geopolitical contrast in one hand and regarding the cognitive and nonmaterial fundamentals of action on the other hand.
Without a doubt, current pattern of Iran-U.S relationship Influenced by both mentioned factors; this reciprocal process of impact with material and non-material elements of power and security have described this issue as a unsolved multi-faceted and multi-layered conflict. It seems that strategic culture framework as a pattern that mutually respect to state's objective, measurable and visible act alongside non material and invisible structures of practice can be useful to explain dimensions and causes of Iran-U.S conflict.
According to this, the main agenda of this article is to illustrate a more detailed image about Iran-U.S conflict through a comparative Survey on elements and components of two state's strategic culture, with respect to significant security aspects of this conflict.

The purpose of this article is to examine the characteristics of the Islamic Republic of Iran's strategic culture. Several factors contribute to the shaping of culture A strategy countries. From the perspective of a number of scholars of international relations culture has a huge influence on strategic decisions. In recent years, research on the role of national and international security is again considered. The main question of this study is that the characteristics of the Islamic Republic of Iran is the strategic culture and the characteristics of what factors and variables are derived.This research is descriptive and analytical approach to hypothesize that the historical experience, the teachings of Islam and geography than any other component involved in shaping strategic culture.