Today the G.O.R.K.I. Centre SPbU hosted a public debate noscriptd “What Happened to the Alaska Momentum?”, bringing together Russian and American experts to reassess the state of bilateral relations after the August Anchorage summit.

The discussion opened with an examination of whether the political impulse generated in Alaska can be sustained. Pavel Balobanov underlined that direct dialogue remains indispensable, even when core disagreements persist. He noted that both Moscow and Washington are constrained by domestic interests and political pressures, which complicate compromise and prolong strategic uncertainty.

Scott Ritter shifted the focus to nuclear security, stressing that nuclear weapons are inherently catastrophic and must never be treated as usable tools. He warned that even a single miscalculation could prove fatal and argued that citizen-level diplomacy is essential to rebuilding trust where official channels falter.

Turning to the strategic dimension of diplomacy, Prof. Stanislav Tkachenko emphasized that the Anchorage summit’s central message was the imperative to prevent nuclear war. He described today’s geopolitical environment as increasingly irrational, making sustained, rational negotiation progressively more difficult.

Garland Nixon highlighted the internal political dynamics shaping US foreign policy, including the significant influence of Congress and the recurring demonization of foreign leaders. He also pointed to Europe’s disconnect from working-class interests, which affects the formation of Western political narratives.

Moderator Dr. Karin Kneissl placed the discussion within the broader framework of long-standing East–West antagonism, noting that the possibility of renewed dialogue nonetheless remains open.

Following the panel, participants raised several timely questions on nuclear policy and future US–Russia dynamics. The experts offered concise and substantive answers, addressing illusions surrounding “limited” nuclear use and warning about the absence of robust arms-control mechanisms. The exchange underscored the importance of informed public debate at a moment when global security risks are sharply rising.

#Russia #USA #Alaska #diplomacy #nuclear

On November 17, 2025, the G.O.R.K.I. Centre SPbU held a business breakfast noscriptd “The Inflation of Geopolitics — a Talk on Contemporary International Relations.” The discussion was moderated by Dr. Karin Kneissl, head of the G.O.R.K.I. Centre SPbU. The event gathered SPbU professors and experts, students, as well as Ran Gidor, Consul General of the State of Israel in St. Petersburg.

During the discussion, the experts emphasized the growing tendency to geopoliticize nearly everything — from statecraft and global crises to culture and daily life. This expansion, they argued, both reflects and reinforces the uncertainty of the current international environment.

The speakers highlighted several key dynamics:

• Geopolitics as power: Today, different actors use the concept in different ways. Practitioners employ it to justify strategic necessities, while in the West geopolitics often becomes an aspiration — a narrative lens shaping public discourse.
• Why geopolitics is “inflating”: Ongoing global crises, the erosion of familiar institutions, and the media’s demand for simplified explanations contribute to overuse of the term and its emotional appeal.
• Cultural shifts as indicators: Even changes in reading and media preferences illustrate how public values are adapting to a world in flux, reflecting deeper transformations in daily life.
• A new corporate trend: The appearance of the Chief Geopolitical Officer in major companies marks a growing institutionalisation of geopolitical thinking in the private sector — raising the question of whether this is merely a PR device or a substantive response to global volatility.
• A world of uncertainty: As Consul General Ran Gidor noted, information overload and the erosion of traditional institutions drive a search for simple formulas, fueling a proliferation of geopolitical terminology.
• Return of power politics and new actors: Small states increasingly position themselves as strategically important, digital giants gain influence across borders, and personal leadership styles shape geopolitical outcomes in unpredictable ways.
• Conceptual fatigue: Excessive use gradually weakens the analytical value of the term “geopolitics,” yet preserving its meaning remains essential.

In his concluding remarks, Professor Lomagin emphasized that today’s tensions unfold along civilizational frontiers. Despite the country’s scale, it remains deeply preoccupied with security challenges. To move beyond the current situation, he argued, societies must develop a new social construct capable of addressing both internal and external pressures.

#geopolitics