print

States’ resilience to external influence in the scientific and expert sphere:
towards an analytical model

Sutyrin V.V.,

MGIMO University, Moscow, Russia, v.sutyrin@inno.mgimo.ru

elibrary_id: 1043396 |

Rekeda S.V.,

ANO “Prospects for Integration Research Center”, Moscow, Russia, rekedata@yandex.ru

elibrary_id: 739916 |

Article received: 2024.10.24 09:41. Accepted: 2025.08.06 09:41


DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2025.06.07
EDN: NPJPYT

Rubric: Orbis terrarum

For citation:

Sutyrin V.V., Rekeda S.V. States’ resilience to external influence in the scientific and expert sphere: towards an analytical model. – Polis. Political Studies. 2025. No. 6. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2025.06.07. EDN: NPJPYT (In Russ.)

The article was prepared in the framework of a research grant funded by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation (grant ID: 075-15-2022-327). The mass expert survey within the research was conducted by the nonprofit organization “Eurasian Monitor” commissioned by MGIMO. The authors express their gratitude to their MGIMO colleagues V. Dmitrieva and D. Prokazov for their assistance in preparing the publication.

Abstract

The paper presents the results of a research project on the resilience of states to external influence in the scientific and expert sphere. The authors present a formal assessment model based on the analysis of empirical materials, which is tested on Russia’s partner states in the Eurasian Economic Union – Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan; while the EU institutions and Britain were considered as sources of influence. Based on expert interviews, a mass survey, and statistical analysis, the study identified key factors shaping resilience to external influence within the scientific and expert community. Each factor was assigned a significance coefficient, including the volume of domestic research grant support, the share of R&D in GDP, and the share of non-profit organizations in the national economy (GDP), among others. The findings show that Kyrgyzstan and Armenia demonstrate the highest vulnerability to external influence. At the opposite end of the spectrum are Belarus and Russia, which have strengthened their self-sufficiency in recent years. Kazakhstan occupies a middle position, showing a growing trend of Western external presence. The paper also makes policy recommendations to strengthen the resilience of the EAEU countries to external influence in the scientific and expert sphere through the use of the instruments provided for in the Union Treaty

Keywords

humanitarian influence, post-Soviet space, Eurasian Economic Union, scientific and expert diplomacy.

Дополнительные материалы

Приложение

Adler, E., & Faubert, M. (2022). Epistemic communities of practice. Conceptualizing International Practices, 47-76. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009052504.003

Bicchi, F. (2022). Communities of practice and what they can do for International Relations. Review of International Studies, 48(1), 24-43. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210521000528

Flink, T., & Rüffin, N. (2019). The current state of the art of science diplomacy. Handbook on Science and Public Policy, 104-121. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784715946.00015

Gani, J.K., & Marshall, J. (2022). The impact of colonialism on policy and knowledge production in International Relations. International Affairs, 98(1), 5-22. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiab226

Gluckman, P.D., Turekian, V.C., Grimes, R.W., & Kishi, T. (2017). Science diplomacy: a pragmatic perspective from the inside. Science & Diplomacy, 6(4), 1-13.

Haas, P.M. (1992). Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization, 46(1), 1-35. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300001442

Lobell, S.E., Ripsman, N.M., & Taliaferro, J.W. (Eds.). (2009). Neoclassical Realism, the State, and Foreign Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511811869

New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy: Navigating the Changing Balance of Power. (2010). London: The Royal Society.

Poskett, J. (2022). Horizons: A Global History of Science. London: Viking.

Ripsman, N.M., Taliaferro, J.W., & Lobell, S.E. (2016). Neoclassical Realist Theory of International Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199899234.001.0001

Rose, G. (1998). Neoclassical realism and theories of foreign policy. World Politics, 51(1), 144-172. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043887100007814

Science Diplomacy in an Era of Disruption. (2025). London: The Royal Society.

Sondarjee, M., & Andrews, N. (2022). Decolonizing international relations and development studies: what’s in a buzzword? International Journal, 77(4), 551-571. https://doi.org/10.1177/00207020231166588

Turekian, V. (2018). The evolution of science diplomacy. Global Policy, 9, 5-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12623

Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7(2), 225-246. https://doi.org/10.1177/135050840072002

Baikov, A.A. (2017). Economic integration as a world political phenomenon: outline of theory and methodology of comparative assessment. Outlines of Global Transformations: Politics, Economics, Law, 4, 38-53. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.23932/2542-0240-2017-10-4-38-53

Fenenko, A. (2020). Anti-soft power in political theory and practice. International Trends, 18(1), 40-71. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17994/IT.2020.18.1.60.3

Gutenev, M.Yu. (2021). Science diplomacy as a tool for achieving foreign policy goals. World Economy and International Relations, 65(6), 119-127. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20542/0131-2227-2021-65-6-119-127

Istomin, I.A. (2023). Foreign interference in internal affairs: Deconstruction of an essentially indeterminate concept. Polis. Political Studies, 2, 120-137. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2023.02.09

Konyshev, V.N. (2020). Neoclassical realism in the theory of international relations. Polis. Political Studies, 4, 94-111. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2020.04.07

Panchenko, V.Ya., & Torkunov, A.V. (2018). Scientist as a diplomat: Science influences the solution to international conflicts and problems. Russian Foundation for Basic Research Journal, 1, 10-17. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.22204/2410-4639-2018-097-01-10-17

Reinhardt, R.O. (2021). Russian science diplomacy at a crossroads: Positive and normative analysis. MGIMO Review of International Relations, 14(2), 92-106. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2021-2-77-92-106

Rustamova, L.R. (2024). Transformation of soft power and conflict potential in international relations. Avenues to Peace and Security, 1, 150-168. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20542/2307-1494-2024-1-150-168

Sutyrin, V.V. (2020). Humanitarian influence in foreign policy revisited: Resources, channels, infrastructures. Social Sciences and Contemporary World, 5, 5-20. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31857/S086904990012324-8

Sutyrin, V.V. (2023). Chelovek v tsentre geopoliticheskogo sopernichestva: podavlenie miagkoi sily v SShA, Kitae i Evrosoiuze [A person in the centre of geopolitical rivalry: Suppression of soft power in the USA, China, and the EU]. Moscow: MGIMO University. (In Russ.)

Sutyrin, V.V., Rekeda, S.V., Zadorin, I.V., Maltseva, D.V., Molotkova, O.A., & Kuznetsov, R.S. (2024). Professional’nye kommunikatsii predstavitelei ekspertnykh soobshchestv gumanitarnogo profilia stran SNG [Professional Communications among CIS Expert Communities in the Field of Humanities]. Moscow: MGIMO University. (In Russ.)

Torkunov, A.V. (2019). Diplomacy of the academic community: the past and the present. World Economy and International Relations, 63(9), 22-28. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20542/0131-2227-2019-63-9-22-28

Torkunov, A.V. (2022). Russia and political order in a changing world: values, institutions, prospects. Polis. Political Studies, 5, 7-22. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2022.05.02

Tsygankov, A.P. (2013). Omnipotent because true? Soft power and the theory of international relations. Russia in Global Affairs, 6, 26-36. (In Russ.)

Vigneau, A., & Baikov, A. (2018). Why states borrow environmental norms: the case of Russia. International Trends, 16(4), 137-153. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17994/IT.2018.16.4.55.8

See also: