He is responsible for the intellectual performance of RIAC, managing its programmes and projects. His personal background at RIAC includes working with Russian and foreign diplomats, governmental officials, experts, businessmen and NGO-leaders regarding Russia’s foreign policy and public diplomacy. Since 2015 he also heads Euro-Atlantic Security programme at the Valdai Discussion Club.
Before joining RIAC, Ivan Timofeev was the Head of Analytical Monitoring Centre and Associate Professor at MGIMO University (2009–2011). He was awarded a doctoral degree in Political Science at MGIMO (2006).
Ivan Timofeev is an author and co-author of more than 70 publications, issued in Russian and foreign academic press. He is a member of editorial board at the Comparative Politics. He was elected as a Professor of the Academy for Military Science (2013).
Does the US intend to work with Russia to fight terrorism, while using the same bureaucratic mechanisms against it as against ISIS? How will the Russian parliament respond to the initiative to use national intelligence to ensure the transparency of Russian leadership? Will the US improve its security by making Russia an outcast? To answer these questions one needs to think outside the box, which is becoming a rare approach in today’s politics.
A truly sensitive blow would be the transfer of a number of Russian companies from sectoral lists (SSI) to the SDN list. However, there are risks for both the Americans themselves and their partners. If Russian-American relations neither worsen nor improve, such a step is unlikely to be in demand.
In early February, the US Senate approved Strengthening America’s Security in the Middle East Act of 2019﻿, which is yet to pass through the House of Representatives and be signed into law by the President. More likely than not, it will be accepted in its present wording. For Russian public and private companies it is of importance from the point of view of its further codification of anti-Syria sanctions.
The Munich Security Report 2019 gives a clear answer to the question “Who is to blame”? We can argue with the conclusions reached by the authors, but they are clarified for us. Of course, Russia is among the guilty: the report reproduces in one way or another the official line of the EU and the US on key issues, although this was done quite correctly and without additional Russophobia. The problem is with another question – “What to do”?
The attempt to change the government in Venezuela and the unequivocal support of the opposition from the United States can hardly be considered a spontaneous phenomenon. For Washington, Nicolas Maduro has been a hostile figure from the very beginning of his rule in 2013.
﻿﻿The invigoration of dialogue between Moscow and Tokyo has again raised the question of the prospects for concluding a peace treaty. Both countries see the intensification of trade and economic cooperation as one of the goals of their negotiations. Japan’s diplomacy implies by default that solving the so-called “territorial issue” will create new conditions for commercial relations between the two countries.
The main political question is how long the key players will accept the situation where economic globalization is used in the political interests of the leading power and the main currency of international settlements is “weaponized.” It seems 2019 may become the year of major decisions.
﻿Many evaluations of the US sanctions policy focus on major political steps – the adoption of new laws, the US President’s executive orders, the drafting of new bills, etc. At the same time, the practice of US regulators punishing specific companies for violating sanctions is of great interest. Such practices say a lot about the specifics of the sanctions policy and their effectiveness.