НИР. Современная коммуникативистика, 2017, № 3 (28)

Содержание

СЛОВО ГЛАВНОГО РЕДАКТОРА

Гойхман О.Я.
Коммуникативные аспекты социума ................................................5

ОБЩИЕ ПРОБЛЕМЫ КОММУНИКАТИВИСТИКИ

Райнхардт Р.О.
США и Россия: 210 лет дипломатических отношений 
и международной коммуникации .....................................................8

Крылова С.В.
Французская идентичность в динамике 
культурфилософской и лингвокультурологической 
мысли ............................................................................................................. 15

Щекотихина И.Н. 
Параметры выявления признаков стереотипности / 
креативности в коммуникативном поведении 
участников ассоциативного эксперимента ...............................23

РЕЧЕВАЯ И МЕЖКУЛЬТУРНАЯ КОММУНИКАЦИЯ
Миньяр-Белоручева А.П. 
Когнитивный аспект изучения терминов 
искусствоведения .................................................................................... 30
Шевченко С.Н.
Особенности культурной адаптации заимствованных 
фразеологизмов, содержащих лексемы полезных 
ископаемых, в русском и английском языках ..........................36

КОММУНИКАТИВИСТИКА И ОБРАЗОВАНИЕ

Антропова М.Ю.
Дистанционное обучение русской деловой речи 
в сфере туристского бизнеса ............................................................. 42

Сергиевская И.Л. 
Возможности мультимедиа для обучения аудированию
иноязычного текста  ............................................................................... 45

Подписной индекс Агентства «Роспечать» 25179

Присланные рукописи не возвращаются.

Точка зрения редакции может не совпадать с мнением 
авторов публикуемых материалов.

Редакция оставляет за собой право самостоятельно 
подбирать к авторским материалам иллюстрации, 
менять заголовки, сокращать тексты и вносить в рукописи необходимую стилистическую правку без 
согласования с авторами. Поступившие в редакцию 
материалы будут свидетельствовать о согласии авторов принять требования редакции.

Перепечатка материалов допускается с письменного 
разрешения редакции.

При цитировании ссылка на журнал «НИР. Современная 
коммуникативистика» обязательна.

Редакция не несет ответственности за содержание 
рекламных материалов.

Научный журнал

Выходит один раз в два месяца

Свидетельство о регистрации средства массовой 
информации от 19 октября 2012 г. 
ПИ № ФС77-51415

Издатель: 

ООО «Научно-издательский центр ИНФРА-М»
127282, г. Москва, ул. Полярная, д. 31В, стр. 1
Тел.: (495) 280-15-96, 280-33-86 (доб. 501)
Факс: (495) 280-36-29
E-mail: books@infra-m.ru
http://www.infra-m.ru

Главный редактор:
Гойхман О.Я., д-р пед. наук, профессор, 
заслуженный работник высшей школы РФ, 
Российский новый университет (Москва, Россия)

Ответственный секретарь:
Гончарова Л.М., канд. филол. наук, доцент, 
Российский новый университет (Москва, Россия)

Выпускающий редактор: 
Склянкина Д.С.

Отдел подписки: 
Назарова М.В.
Тел.: (495) 280-15-96, доб. 249
e-mail: podpiska@infra-m.ru

Подписано в печать 12.05.2017. 
Формат 60×90/8. Бумага офсетная. 
Тираж 1000 экз. Заказ № 

САЙТ: www.naukaru.ru 
E-mail: mag10@naukaru.ru

© ИНФРА-М, 2017

ISSN 2306-2592
DOI 10.12737/issn2306-2592
НАУЧНЫЕ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯ И РАЗРАБОТКИ
СОВРЕМЕННАЯ 
КОММУНИКАТИВИСТИКА

Издается с 2012 года
№ 3(28)/2017

Журнал «Современная коммуникативистика» вклю
чен в перечень ведущих научных журналов, в которых 
по рекомендации BAK РФ должны быть опубликованы 
научные результаты диссертаций на соискание ученых 
степеней кандидата и доктора наук, вступивший в силу 
с 01.12.2015.

Романенко Н.М., доктор педагогических наук, профес
сор, Московский государственный институт международных отношений (Университет) (Москва, Россия)

Силантьева М.В., доктор философских наук, профессор, 

Московский государственный институт международных отношений (Университет) (Москва, Россия)

Шапошников В.Н., доктор филологических наук, профес
сор, Московский городской психолого-педагогический 
университет (Москва, Россия)

Щукин А.Н., доктор педагогических наук, профессор, 

заслуженный деятель науки РФ, Государственный институт 
русского языка им. А.С. Пушкина (Москва, Россия)

РЕДАКЦИОННАЯ КОЛЛЕГИЯ

Гойхман О.Я., доктор педагогических наук, профес
сор, заслуженный работник высшей школы РФ, 
Российский новый университет (Москва, Россия), 
главный редактор

Гончарова Л.М., кандидат филологических наук, 

доцент, Российский новый университет (Москва, 
Россия), ответственный секретарь

Бердичевский А.Л., доктор педагогических наук, 

профессор, Институт международных экономических связей (Айзенштадт, Австрия)

Блох М.Я., доктор филологических наук, профессор, 

Московский педагогический государственный 
университет (Москва, Россия)

Бобылев Б.Г., доктор педагогических наук, профес
сор, Орловский государственный университет им. 
И.С. Тургенева (Орел, Россия)

Воевода Е.В., доктор педагогических наук, доцент,
 
Московский государственный институт международных отношений (Университет) (Москва, Россия)

Голубева И.В., Ph.D. в области прикладной лингви
стики (межкультурная коммуникация), президент 
Венгерской секции Европейской ассоциации 
преподавателей (Веспрем, Венгрия)

Диденко В.Д., доктор философских наук, профессор, 

Государственный университет управления 
(Москва, Россия)

Добросклонская Т.Г., доктор филологических наук, 

профессор, Московский государственный университет им. М.В. Ломоносова (Москва, Россия)

Дубинский В.И., доктор педагогических наук, 

профессор, Московский педагогический государственный университет Москва, Россия

Ен Чоль Ко, доктор педагогических наук, ректор 

Института переводчиков (Сеул, Республика Корея)

Клюканов И.Э., доктор филологических наук, 

профессор, Восточный Вашингтонский университет (Вашингтон, США)

Комина Н.А., доктор филологических наук, профес
сор, Тверской государственный университет 
(Тверь, Россия)

Костикова Л.П., доктор педагогических наук, доцент, 

Рязанский государственный университет им. 
С.А. Есенина (Рязань, Россия)

Ларионова А.Ю., доктор филологических наук, профес
сор, Уральский федеральный университет им. 
Первого Президента России (Екатеринбург, Россия)

Махмуд А.Т., Ph.D. (Питтсбургский университет, США), 

профессор лингвистики, декан факультета, 
Ассьютский университет (Ассьют, Египет)

Нижнёва Н.Н., доктор педагогических наук, профес
сор, академик Международной академии информационных технологий, Белорусский государственный университет (Минск, Республика Беларусь)

Нур-Ахмет Д., доктор философии, академик НАН,
 
Тюркско-словянская академия (Астана, Республика 
Казахстан)

Просвиркина И.И., доктор педагогических наук, 

доцент, Оренбургский государственный университет (Оренбург, Россия)

КОММУНИКАТИВНЫЙ ТЕКСТ

Сергеев О.В.
Коммуникативная функция литературных сновидений 
в русской классической литературе конца XVIII — 
начала XIX в.  ............................................................................................... 49

Кремер И.Ю.
Социальные роли в контексте научной рецензии  
и их лингвистическая реализация ................................................. 53

ИМИДЖЕВАЯ, РЕКЛАМНАЯ 
И БИЗНЕС-КОММУНИКАЦИЯ

Калмыков С.Б., Савельева О.О. 
Социальная реклама: почему нет массовости 
и регулярности?  ...................................................................................... 58

НОВОСТИ КОММУНИКАТИВИСТИКИ

Аннушкин В.И. 
Риторические итоги и перспективы: хроника 
юбилейной конференции Риторической ассоциации .........65

Информация для авторов ............................................................... 68

Contents 

ADDRESS OF EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

Goykhman O.Ya.
Communicative Aspects of Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5

COMMON PROBLEMS OF THE THEORY 
OF COMMUNICATION

Raynkhardt R.O.
USA and Russia: 210 Years of Diplomatic Relations and 
International Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8

Krylova S.V.
French Identity in Dynamics of Culture Philosophical 
and Lingvocultural Conception  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Schekotikhina I.N. 
Parameters for Detecting Features of Stereotipicity / 
Creativity in Communicative Behaviour of People 
Participating in Association Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

SPEECH AND CROSS-CULTURAL COMMUNICATION

Minyar-Beloroucheva A.P.
Cognitive Aspect of the Art History Terms Study . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Shevchenko S.N. 
Cultural Adaptation of International Phrasemes Containing 
Natural Resources Terms in The Russian and English 
Languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

COMMUNICATION SCIENCE AND EDUCATION

Antropova M.Yu. 
Distance Training of Russian Business Language 
in Tourism Industry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Sergievskaya I.L. 
Multimedia Capabilities for Teaching Listening 
Foreign-Language Text  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Subscription index in the United Catalogue 
“Rospechat” 25179

R&D ‘Modern Communication Studies’ does not return 
submitted manuscripts.

Statements of opinion in the articles in ‘Modern Communication 
Studies’ are those of the respective authors and not of the 
Editors.

The Editors reserve the right to supply materials with 
illustrations, change headlines, streamline texts and make 
necessary stylistic editing without the consent of the authors.
Submission of materials indicates that the author accepts 
the demands of the Publisher. 

No part of this publication may be reproduced without the 
written permission of the Publisher. Paper citing requires 
proper reference to the Journal. 

The Editor cannot be held accountable for the content of 
the advertising.

Scientific journal

Bimonthly publication

Registration mass-media license PI No. FS77-51415
October 19, 2012

Publishing office: 
Scientific and Publishing Center “INFRA-M”,
31B, Building 1, Polyarnaya st., Moscow, 127282, Russia
Tel.: (495) 280-15-96, 280-33-86; Fax: (495)280-36-29.
e-mail: books@infra-m.ru
http://www.infra-m.ru
Editor-in-Chief
Goykhman O.Ya.
Doctor of Pedagogy, Professor
Honored Worker of Higher Education of Russia
Russian New University
Moscow, Russia
Chief editor of the magazine
Goncharova L.M. 
Ph.D. in Philology, Associate Professor
Russian New University
Moscow, Russia
Executive Secretary of the magazine
Production Editor
Skliankina D.S.
Subscription office: 
Nazarova M.V.
Tel.: (495) 280-15-96, ext. 249.
E-mail: podpiska@infra-m.ru

Signed for publication 12.05.2017
Format 60×90/8, circulation 700 copies 

www.naukaru.ru 
E-mail: mag10@naukaru.ru

© ИНФРА-М, 2017

SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
MODERN COMMUNICATION 
STUDIES

Рublished since 2012
№ 3(28)/2017

ISSN 2306-2592
DOI 10.12737/issn2306-2592

EDITORIAL BOARD

Goykhman O.Ya., Doctor of Pedagogy, Professor, 

Honored Worker of Higher Education of Russia, 
Russian New University (Moscow, Russia), 

 
Chief editor of the magazine

Goncharova L.M., Ph.D. in Philology, Associate 

Professor, Russian New University (Moscow, Russia)

 
Executive Secretary of the magazine

Berdichevskiy A.L., Doctor of Pedagogy, Professor, 

The Institute of International Economic Relations 
(Eisenstadt, Austria)

Blokh M.Ya., Doctor of Philology, Professor, Moscow 

Pedagogical State University (Moscow, Russia)

Bobylev B.G., Doctor of Pedagogy, Professor, Orel 

State University named after I.S. Turgenev  (Orel, 
Russia)

Voevoda E.V., Doctor of Pedagogy, Associate 

Professor

 
Moscow State Institute of International Relations 
(University) (Moscow, Russia)

Golubeva I.V., Ph.D. Degree in Applied Linguistics 

(Intercultural Communication), President of 
Hungarian Section of European Association of 
Teachers

 
(Veszprém, Hungary)

Didenko V.D., Doctor of Philosophy, Professor, State 

University of Management (Moscow, Russia)

Dobrosklonskaya T.G., Doctor of Philology, Professor,
 
Lomonosov Moscow State University (Moscow, 
Russia)

Dubinskiy V.I., Doctor of Pedagogy, Professor, 

Moscow Pedagogical State University (Moscow, 
Russia)

Young Cheol Ko, Doctor of Pedagogy, Professor, 

Rector of the Institute of Translators (Seoul, 
Republic of Korea)

Klykanov I.E., Doctor of Philology, Professor, Eastern 

Washington University (Washington, USA)

Komina N.A., Doctor of Philology, Professor, Tver 

State University (Tver, Russia)

Kostikova L.P., Doctor of Pedagogy, Professor, Ryazan 

State University named after S. Yesenin (Ryazan, 
Russia)

Larionova А.Yu., Doctor of Philology, Professor,
 
Ural Federal University named after First President 
of Russia (Ekaterinburg, Russia)

Mahmoud A.T., Ph.D. (U. of Pittsburgh, USA), 

Professor of Linguistics, Vice-Dean for Graduate 
Studies and Research & Director of the English 
Language Center Faculty of Arts (Assiut, Egypt)

Nizhneva N.N., Doctor of Pedagogy, Professor, 

Academician of the International Academy of 
Information Technology Belarusian State University

 
(Minsk, Republic of Belarus)

Nur-Ahmet Dosmuhamet, Ph.D., Doctor of 

Philosophy, Academician The first Vice-President of 
the International Turkic Academy (Astana, 
Kazaxstan)

Prosvirkina I.I., Doctor of Pedagogy, Associate 

Professor Orenburg State University (Orenburg, 
Russia)

Romanenko N.M., Doctor of Pedagogy, Professor, 

Moscow State Institute of International Relations 
(University)

 
(Moscow, Russia)

COMMUNICATIVE TEXT

Sergeev O.V.
Communicative Function of Literary Dreams in the Russian 
Classical Literature of the End of XVIII — the Beginnings 
of the 19th Century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Kremer I.Yu. 
Social Roles in the Context of Critical Review and Their 
Linguistic Realization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

IMAGE-BASED, ADVERTISING AND BUSINESS 
COMMUNICATION

Kalmykov S.B., Savelieva O.O.
Social Advertising: Why There Is No Mass Character 
And Regularity? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

COMMUNICATION SCIENCE NEWS

Silantieva M.V. 
Cross-cultural Communication in Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Information for Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Silantyeva M.V., Doctor of Philosophy, Professor, Moscow 

State Institute of International Relations (University)

 
(Moscow, Russia)

Shaposhnikov V.N., Doctor of Philology, Professor, 

Moscow City University of Psychology and Pedagogy

 
(Moscow, Russia)

Shchukin A.N., Doctor of Pedagogy, Professor, State 

Institute of Russian Language named after A. Pushkin

 
(Moscow, Russia)

СЛОВО ГЛАВНОГО РЕДАКТОРА

Коммуникативные аспекты социума

Communicative Aspects of Society

О.Я. Гойхман 
Д-р пед. наук, профессор,
Российский новый университет,
Россия, 105005, Москва, ул. Радио, 22,
e-mail: aan1234569@yandex.ru

O.Ya. Goykhman 
Doctor of Pedagogy, Professor,
Russian New University,
22, Radio St., Moscow, 105005, Russia,
e-mail: aan1234569@yandex.ru

Слово главного редактора

Сегодня как никогда ранее мировое сообщество 

раздирают противоречия. Оно находится под давлением многоголосого интернет-пространства и пребывает в растерянности и недоумении. Мы не спешим 
садиться за стол переговоров, чтобы слушать и понимать друг друга. А ведь именно так можно решить 
многие проблемы и конфликты.

Не случайно этот номер журнала открывает статья 

канд. экон. наук Р.О. Райнхардта, которая посвящена 
210-летнему юбилею установления дипломатических 
отношений между США и Россией и раскрывает 
историю их развития. При комплексном исследовании предмета с точки зрения понимания текущей 
геополитической конъюнктуры, учитывая различия 
в политической культуре, автор выявляет важную 
роль межкультурной коммуникации в рамках соответствующих исторических эпизодов. Результаты 
исторического анализа дают все же почву для умеренного оптимизма относительно дальнейшего развития отношений между США и Россией [7].

В статье С.В. Крыловой проведён обзор научных 

публикаций и российских разработок, посвященных 
изучению специфики этнокультурной, региональной, 
национальной идентичности. Показывая, как изменения культурной политики французского государства влияют на состояние общества, автор знакомит 
с результатами анализа комментариев на сайтах 
французских онлайновых СМИ, акцентируя внимание на социокультурных кодах французской идентичности [5].

Поскольку коммуникативный аспект, наряду с 

когнитивным, является компонентом речевой деятельности человека, канд. филол. наук И.Н. Щекотихина проводит анализ данных с целью обнаружения 
в коммуникативных действиях испытуемых признаков стереотипности и креативности (творчества). 
Для проведения подобного анализа автором был 

разработан ряд параметров и изложены результаты 
[12]. 

В статье д-ра филол. наук А.П. Миньяр-Белоручевой 

утверждается, что термины искусствоведения требуют создания современных методов их изучения. 
При введении новой парадигмы изменяется не 
предмет исследования, а аспекты, ранее находившиеся вне сферы внимания ученых. Предлагаемый 
подход к изучению терминов искусствоведения 
позволяет рассматривать их как знаки, посредством 
которых происходит вербализация научных понятий и создается концептуальная модель мира искусства [6].

В статье С.Н. Шевченко предпринята попытка 

выявить национальную специфику употребления 
заимствованных фразеологизмов, показать, что, несмотря на свою интернациональность, в разных языках-реципиентах они функционируют по-разному, 
приспосабливаясь к культуре, традициям, отражая 
психологию нации. Сопоставляется семантика и 
особенности употребления некоторых библеизмов, 
классических фразеологизмов античного происхождения, мифологем. Причем семантика одного и того 
же калькированного фразеологизма может несколько отличаться в разных языках. Например, может 
расходиться контекст употребления, варьироваться 
частотность и актуальность заимствования для лингвокультуры [11]. 

В статье канд. филол. наук М.Ю. Антроповой 

рассказывается об опыте работы по созданию и внедрению в учебный процесс на образовательном интернет-ресурсе оригинального модуля обучения русскому деловому языку, направленного, прежде всего, 
на курсовое обучение иностранных слушателей, 
работающих в сфере туризма [2]. Здесь можно добавить, что обучение русскому языку нефилологов 
испытывает трудности из-за отсутствия учебников. 

НИР. Современная коммуникативистика (№ 3, 2017). 68:5–7

текста, проводится исторический экскурс по данной 
проблеме. Автор статьи характеризует социальные 
роли участников научной коммуникации, выявляет 
особенности интерперсонального взаимодействия [4]. 

В статье канд. социол. наук С.Б. Калмыкова и 

д-ра социол. наук О.О. Савельевой проанализированы причины, тормозящие развитие социорекламной 
сферы. Исследованы конкретно-исторический, финансовый, научный и государственный аспекты. 
Обоснованы предложения по развитию теоретикометодологических оснований социальной рекламы, 
обеспечению достоверности результатов социологических исследований, расширению прикладного 
содержания результатов исследования социальной 
рекламы. Показана специфика ее влияния на целевую 
аудиторию и обращено внимание на тенденцию коммерциализации [3].

В сообщении д-ра филол. наук В.И. Аннушкина да
ется информация о состоявшейся 1–3 февраля 2017 г. 
XXI Международной конференции Российской ассоциации риторов на тему «Риторика и культура речи 
в современном научно-педагогическом процессе и 
общественно-коммуникативной практике», приуроченной к 20-летию создания ассоциации [1].

Так, для направления «Сервис и туризм» есть всего 
один учебник с грифом соответствующего УМО [8].

Процесс смысловой обработки информации, по
лучаемой при аудировании, по мнению канд. пед. 
наук И.Л. Сергиевской, облегчается, если сопровождается созданием визуального образа в знаковосимвольной форме в контексте мультимедиа. Звучащая 
информация подкрепляется последовательно раскрывающимся на экране визуальным образом, который воздействует на слушающего своей динамикой 
и облегчает восприятие [10]. 

Статья д-ра филол. наук О.В. Сергеева посвящена 

снам литературных персонажей в наиболее известных 
произведениях русской классической литературы. 
Центральный объект этой статьи — коммуникативистские особенности литературных снов и сюжеты 
с интенсивными формами общения. Главное внимание уделено анализу душевно-духовных состояний: 
диалоги, любовные приключения, венчание, сентиментальные путешествия [9].

Анализ социальных ролей и их лингвистической 

реализации в немецкой научной рецензии представила канд. филол. наук И.Ю. Кремер. В статье теоретически обосновывается роль личности при создании 

Литература

1. Аннушкин В.И. Хроника юбилейной конференции Ритори
ческой ассоциации [Текст] / В.И. Аннушкин // Современная 
коммуникативистика. — 2017. — № 3.

2. Антропова М.Ю. Дистанционное обучение русской деловой 

речи в сфере туристского бизнеса [Текст] / М.Ю. Антропова // Современная коммуникативистика. — 2017. — № 3.

3. Калмыков С.Б. Социальная реклама: почему нет массово
сти и регулярности? [Текст] / С.Б. Калмыков, О.О. Савельева // Современная коммуникативистика. — 2017. — № 3.

4. Кремер И.Ю. Социальные роли в контексте научной ре
цензии и их лингвистическая реализация [Текст] / 
И.Ю. Кремер // Современная коммуникативистика. — 
2017. — № 3.

5. Крылова С.В. Французская идентичность в динамике куль
турфилософской и лингвокультурологической мысли 
[Текст] / С.В. Крылова // Современная коммуникативистика. — 2017. — № 3.

6. Миньяр-Белоручева А.П. Когнитивный аспект изучения 

терминов искусствоведения [Текст] /А.П. Миньяр-Белоручева // Современная коммуникативистика. — 2017. — 
№ 3.

7. Рейнхардт Р.О. США и Россия: 210 лет дипломатических 

отношений и международной коммуникации [Текст] / 
Р.О. Райнхардт // Современная коммуникативистика. — 
2017. — № 3.

8. Русский язык и культура речи [Текст]: учебник. — 2-е изд., 

перер. и доп. / Под ред. О.Я. Гойхмана. — М.: ИНФРА-М, 
2008. 

9. Сергеев О.В. Коммуникативная функция литературных 

сновидений в русской классической литературе конца 
XVIII — начала XIX века [Текст] / О.В. Сергеев // Современная коммуникативистика. — 2017. — № 3.

10. Сергиевская И.Л. Возможности мультимедиа для обучения 

аудированию иноязычного текста [Текст] / И.Л. Сергиевская // Современная коммуникативистика. — 2017. — № 3.

11. Шевченко С.Н. Особенности культурной адаптации заим
ствованных фразеологизмов, содержащих лексемы полезных ископаемых, в русском и английском языках [Текст] / 
С.Н. Шевченко // Современная коммуникативистика. — 
2017. — № 3.

12. Щекотихина И.Н. Параметры выявления признаков стерео
типности / креативности в коммуникативном поведении участников ассоциативного эксперимента [Текст] / 
И.Н. Щекотихина // Современная коммуникативистика. — 
2017. — № 3.

References

1. Annushkin V.I. Khronika Yubileynoy konferentsii Ritoricheskoy 

assotsiatsii [Chronicle of the Jubilee Conference of the Rhetorical 
Association]. Sovremennaya kommunikativistika [Modern communicativistics]. 2017, I. 3.

2. Antropova M.Yu. Distantsionnoe obuchenie russkoy delovoy 

rechi v sfere turistskogo biznesa [Distance learning of Russian 
business speech in the sphere of tourism business]. Sovremennaya kommunikativistika [Modern communicativistics]. 
2017, I. 3.

3. Kalmykov S.B. Sotsial’naya reklama: pochemu net masso
vosti i regulyarnosti? [Social advertising: why there is no mass 
and regularity?]. Sovremennaya kommunikativistika [Modern 
communicativistics]. 2017, I. 3.

4. Kremer I.Yu. Sotsial’nye roli v kontekste nauchnoy retsenzii i 

ikh lingvisticheskaya realizatsiya [Social roles in the context of 
scientific review and their linguistic implementation]. Sovremennaya 
kommunikativistika [Modern communicativistics]. 2017, I. 3.

5. Krylova S.V. Frantsuzskaya identichnost’ v dinamike kul’turfilosofskoy 

i lingvokul’turologicheskoy mysli [French identity in the dynamics of cultural philosophical and lingvokulturologicheskoy thought]. 
Sovremennaya kommunikativistika [Modern communicativistics]. 
2017, I. 3.

6. Min’yar-Belorucheva A.P. Kognitivnyy aspekt izucheniya ter
minoviskusstvovedeniya [The Cognitive Aspect of the Study 

Слово главного редактора

of Terminiscovery Studies]. Sovremennaya kommunikativistika
[Modern communicativistics]. 2017, I. 3.

7. Reynkhardt R.O. SShA i Rossiya: 210 let diplomaticheskikh 

otnosheniy i mezhdunarodnoy kommunikatsii [USA and Russia: 
210 years of diplomatic relations and international communication]. Sovremennaya kommunikativistika [Modern communicativistics]. 2017, I. 3.

8. Russkiy yazyk i kul’tura rechi [Russian language and culture 

of speech]. Moscow, INFRA-M Publ., 2008. 

9. Sergeev O.V. Kommunikativnaya funktsiya literaturnykh snov
ideniy v russkoy klassicheskoy literature kontsa XVIII — nachala XIX veka [Communicative function of literary dreams in the 
Russian classical literature of the late XVIII — early XIX century]. Sovremennaya kommunikativistika [Modern communicativistics]. 2017, I. 3.

10. Sergievskaya I.L. Vozmozhnosti mul’timedia dlya obucheniya 

audirovaniyu inoyazychnogo teksta [Multimedia capabilities for 

learning to listen Foreign language text]. Sovremennaya kommunikativistika [Modern communicativistics]. 2017, I. 3.

11. Shevchenko S.N. Osobennosti kul’turnoy adaptatsii zaimst
vovannykh frazeologizmov, soderzhashchikh leksemy poleznykh 
iskopaemykh, v russkom i angliyskom yazykakh [eculiarities 
of cultural adaptation of borrowed phraseological units containing lexemes of minerals in Russian and English]. Sovremennaya kommunikativistika [Modern communicativistics]. 
2017, I. 3.

12. Shchekotikhina I.N. Parametry vyyavleniya priznakov ste
reotipnosti/kreativnosti v kommunikativnom povedenii uchastnikov assotsiativnogo eksperimenta [Parameters for revealing signs of stereotypedness / creativity in the communicative behavior of participants in the associative experiment]. 
Sovremennaya kommunikativistika [Modern communicativistics]. 2017, I. 3.

США и Россия: 210 лет дипломатических отношений 
и международной коммуникации

USA and Russia: 210 Years of Diplomatic Relations and International Communication

DOI: 10.12737/ article_58fda885671132.23223626          Получено: 13 февраля 2017 г. / Одобрено: 17 февраля 2017 г. / Опубликовано: 17 мая 2017 г.

Р.О. Райнхардт 
Канд. экон. наук, преподаватель кафедры 
дипломатии МГИМО МИД России,
Россия, 119454, Москва, пр-т Вернадского, 76, 
e-mail: don.reinhardt@mail.ru

R.O. Raynkhardt 
Ph.D. (World Economy), Lecturer at the Department 
for Diplomatic Studies
Moscow State Institute of International Relations 
(University),
76, Prospect Vernadskogo, Moscow, 119454, Russia,
e-mail: don.reinhardt@mail.ru

Аннотация
Статья посвящена 210-летнему юбилею установления дипломатических отношений между США и Россией и раскрывает историю их 
развития. Рассмотрены основные вопросы российско-американской повестки на протяжении более двухсот лет. При комплексном 
исследовании предмета автор делает акцент на отдельных кейсах, 
ключевых с точки зрения понимания текущей геополитической конъюнктуры, определяемой взаимодействием двух стран. Анализируя 
различия в их политической культуре, автор выявляет важную роль 
межкультурной коммуникации в рамках соответствующих исторических эпизодов. Результаты исторического анализа дают почву для 
умеренного оптимизма относительно дальнейшего развития отношений между США и Россией. 

Abstract
The article is dedicated to the 210th anniversary of establishment of diplomatic relations between the United States of America and Russia and 
casts light upon their genesis and development. It provides an acute insight 
into the key issues of US-Russian agenda within a time span of more than 
200 years. Along with giving a holistic picture of the subject, the author 
focuses on specific cases crucial for understanding the current geopolitical 
juncture shaped by the interaction of the two nations. With an emphasis on 
differences in political culture, he outlines the important role of cross-cultural 
communication within the framework of the respective cases. The findings 
derived from the historical analysis give grounds for a certain degree of 
optimism in terms of further development of the relationship between the 
US and Russia.

Ключевые слова: российско-американские отношения, история дипломатии, холодная война, украинский кризис, межкультурная коммуникация.

Keywords: US-Russia relations, history of diplomacy, Cold War, Ukrainian 
crisis, international communication.

ОБЩИЕ ПРОБЛЕМЫ КОММУНИКАТИВИСТИКИ

УДК 930.85

Good old frienemies 

In 2017, Russia and the United States celebrate 210 

years since the official establishment of their diplomatic 
relations. The cross-cultural communication of the two 
nations has an even longer history and sometimes conjures 
up the buzzword ‘frienemy’. The latter, being a portmanteau of the words ‘friend’ and ‘enemy’ (nowadays more 
commonly spelled ‘frenemy’), first appeared in the US 
press on May 19, 1953 in the article ‘Howz about calling 
the Russians our Frienemies?’ [14]. It gained popularity 
even outside the political discourse and in the modern 
usage can refer to either an enemy disguised as a friend 
or to a friend who is simultaneously a competitor and 
rival. In the present context, we definitely opt for the 
second meaning. A similarly ambivalent sense can be 
attributed to the word ‘coopetition’ (portmanteau of 
‘cooperation’ and ‘com-petition’), also used in the present article. 

In general, almost every relationship between two 

nations, whether amicable or rather hostile, cannot but 
have its ups and downs. Eternal friendship just as perpetual enmity, in line with a famous quote by Lord 

НИР. Современная коммуникативистика (№ 3, 2017). 68:8–14

Palmerstone [5], seems to be hardly applicable to foreign 
affairs. At the same time, globalization tends to make the 
world arena too small for any two countries to disregard 
each other’s interests. Shrinking distances along with 
growing interconnection of the key geopolitical actors 
make us therefore live in a global village where a clash of 
interests (both strategic and tactical) should not be regarded as something unusual.

Without going too much into theory, it can be presumed 

that the bigger and more powerful the potential parties 
to a conflict of interests are, the more often they will face 
confrontation. In the case of Russia and the US such 
confrontation has so far culminated in a stage commonly referred to as the Cold War which used to shape the 
international scene for almost half a century. However, 
since then the countries in question have also gone through 
better periods in their bilateral relations.

As for the current state of affairs in this framework, 

today’s political and economic juncture tends to conduce 
concern. Successively as the situation in different parts 
of the world, especially the Middle East and Ukraine, is 
getting more and more complicated, doom-mongers come 
up with gloomy prophecies. Since the beginning of the 

Общие проблемы коммуникативистики

outcome, these steps might be deemed such as to merit 
the final verdict of having contributed to the signature of 
the peace treaties in 1783.

When all relevant factors have been taken into con
sideration, it would not seem totally opportune to give 
the Russian empire credit for US independence. Still, on 
mature reflection the outlined firm policy of non-interference definitely played an important and constructive 
role in the process of global and local dispute settlement. 
Moreover, it definitely was not the worst start for a relationship.

Nevertheless, it is worth mentioning that Russia was 

apparently in no hurry to provide these relations with an 
official and legal basis by means of diplomacy. Shortly 
after Catherine’s above mentioned declaration of 1780, 
which Americans regarded as an undoubtedly friendly 
step, they sent Francis Dana as Minister (term used to 
designate Ambassador at that time) to the Russian empire. 
This statesman resided in Saint Petersburg till 1783 without being officially received at court. The next Minister 
(Plenipotentiary) William Short, an experienced diplomat, 
was appointed only 25 years later, but his mission did not 
turn out to be a success either — this time due to domestic issues. Close associate of Thomas Jefferson (who would 
call him ‘adoptive son’), Short used to be the head of US 
diplomatic missions in France, the Netherlands and Spain, 
i.e. America’s key strategic partners in Europe. His appointment to Russia took place during a recess of the US 
Senate. While he was en route, the Senate rejected the 
nomination hindering him to proceed to post.

Thus, the official establishment of diplomatic relations 

between the Russian empire and the United States of 
America dates back to 1807. The first US ambassador to 
actually present credentials to Catherine’s grandson 
Alexander I was none other than John Quincy Adams 
who later became the 6th President (1825–1829) of his 
country. His identity and service record appear even more 
impressive compared to those of his nominal forerunners 
on the post and give an idea of the importance the US 
attached to dealing with Russia. John Quincy Adams was 
the son of one of the US founding fathers John Adams, 
who himself used to serve as ambassador to Great Britain 
and the Netherlands before becoming the 2nd US President 
in 1797. The highlights of John Quincy Adams’ diplomatic career are: US Minister Resident to the Netherlands 
(1794–1797), Minister Resident to Prussia (1797–1801), 
Minister to Russia (1809–1814 — during Russia’s war 
with Napoleon), Minister to Great Britain (1814–1817), 
Secretary of State (1817–1825).

On the other hand, Adams’ counterpart going as the 

consul general and chargé d’affaires to Philadelphia — 
Andrey Y. Dashkov — was also an outstanding personality and founder of a diplomatic dynasty. The fact that 
Russia’s first diplomatic hub in the US was Philadelphia 

respective crises, Cassandra’s forecasts vary from the 
resumption of the aforementioned Cold War to the breakout (if running into extremes) of a hot one [7; 10]. On 
the other hand, analysts who prefer to be more reserved 
in their judgments are still far from being optimistic about 
what at this point tends to remind a deadlock [12]. The 
jury is still out, but no matter what stance one takes, 
positive expectations and aspirations do not yet seem to 
be backed up by facts — even after the election of Donald 
Trump, who enjoys the sympathy of a good part of Russian 
establishment and public. 

At any rate, there is not a shred of doubt that the above 

problems are an issue at the top of US-Russian agenda 
and have a great impact on the development of the latter. 
Whatever the future has in hold for us in terms of their 
possible resolution, it will most probably signify another 
benchmark for the two great powers with the largest nuclear stockpiles. But how radical can it actually be? A 
brief look at the history makes one think of the well-known 
statement from The Inspired Writings:

“Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is 

new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.” 
(Ecclesiastes 1:10).

Formulating the initial thesis in a more straightforward 

manner, one might go so far as to say that we have seen 
worse. But we have also seen better. 

Once upon a time in America

It all started a long time ago when the United States 

of America as we know them now did not even exist. 
The year 1775 as one of the momentous turning points 
in history was marked by the unrests braking out in 
13 British colonies of the New World. Not to put too 
fine a point on it, this initially internal affair of the 
United Kingdom with a substantially economic underpinning soon turned into the American Revolutionary 
War with serious political repercussions at the international level. Using the modern terminology of political 
scientists, the respective events may have easily been 
referred to as the American spring with the Battles of 
Lexington and Concord as the first military engagements 
being fought on April 19, 1775.

As soon as it became clear that the situation was get
ting out of control, the British monarch George III began 
looking for allies and addressed his Russian counterpart 
Catherine II (the Great) asking for assistance. The Empress, 
however, turned him down flat but made considerable 
efforts to organize peace negotiations between the belligerent parties. In terms of concrete actions, with her 
declaration of 1780 she also founded the First League of 
Armed Neutrality — an alliance of European naval powers, which essentially lowered the negative impacts of the 
economic sanctions imposed by the UK. In their overall 

and not Washington can be linked with quite an interesting coincidence. The founder of the city William Penn 
whose name is also reflected in the State’s geographic 
denomination (Pennsylvania) is said to have met Peter 
the Great back in 1698 in London, which sometimes 
tends to be regarded as the very first Russo-American 
high level political contact. Later on, 11 (till now) Ambassadors 
of the US to Russia represented the State of Pennsylvania.

In 2007, the bicentennial of diplomatic relations be
tween Russia and the US was celebrated in both countries 
without too much general public’s attention neither a stir 
in the mass media. Was it mainly because of the current 
geopolitical juncture before the start of new election 
cycles in Moscow as well as in Washington? Or is it rather the overall lack of warm memories which made the 
anniversary less cheerful than it could have been? Even 
with the further insight into history, this question remains 
open.

From a long honeymoon to almost a divorce

Given the variety of their aspects, making an exhaus
tive survey of the 210-year-long US-Russian relations 
and interstate communication — even in the form of an 
executive summary — would strongly remind a Sisyphean 
task. Since it is not our job to challenge either Russian 
americanists or American kremlinologists, we would 
focus on some illustrative cases which might be of use in 
terms of understanding the key trends about the subject 
in question.

After a delayed but on the whole successful start, 

throughout the whole XIX century bilateral rapports 
between Washington and Saint Petersburg can be characterized by very positive dynamics. Several documents 
were signed, amongst them the Russo-American treaty 
of 1824 followed by the Trade Treaty of 1834. The first 
one’s official title was ‘Convention Between the United 
States of America and His Majesty the Emperor of All 
the Russians, Relative to Navigating, Fishing, Etc., in 
the Pacific Ocean’. It dealt with the demarcation of the 
Pacific Northwest coast of North America. The second 
treaty (‘U.S.-Russian Treaty of Navigation and Commerce’ — in force till 1911) stipulated the principle of most 
favored nation ante litteram in trade between the two 
countries.

Such a rapprochement can obviously be explained by 

predominantly economic reasons. The only cornerstone 
in this field could be seen in territories known as Russian 
America, i.e. possessions of the Russian empire on the 
Northwest coast of North America. The first Russian 
settlers reached this part of America around 1648. As an 
administrative unit, Russian America existed from 1799 
to 1867. In 1867, however, this problem was solved in a 
smooth way by the US’ purchase of the above lands for 

7.2 million USD — an act that the Russians will later on 
deeply regret.

At the same time, cooperation and international in
teraction would by no means be limited by the economic dimension. During the War of 1812 between the United 
States and the British Empire (1812–1815) which coincided with the Franco-Russian conflict, as well as during 
the American Civil War (1861–1865), Saint Petersburg 
would provide Washington with both financial and political support.

What appears to be indeed even more interesting — 

with regard to certain recent events — is America’s reciprocal assistance and role in the Crimean War of 
1853–1856 (Russia vs Britain, France, Ottoman Empire 
and Sardinia). The point is that in the course of this 
military confrontation the US not only shared Russia’s 
stance at the political level but also helped the Russian 
army with military supplies and were even considering 
sending volunteers to the seat of war. Despite the fact that 
at the end of the day American troops never disembarked 
in Crimea, many Russian soldiers were grateful for the 
service of several doctors and army surgeons from the 
New World.

Without going into further historical details or putting 

too much emphasis on the above example, we would like 
to stress that the Crimean Peninsula has already been part 
of the US-Russian agenda in terms of cross-cultural 
communication [3]. It hardly needs to be stated that 
America’s position at that time somewhat differed from 
their current vision of Russia’s national interests and 
respective policies [1]. Of course, there was a completely different political reality and situation on the international scene — in other words, as they would probably 
put it — another story. Nonetheless, the very remembrance 
of this episode along with its more comprehensive analysis could be conducive to engaging the sides in a more 
open and truthful dialogue on the issue.

The next case worth looking into lies in the field of 

technical and once again economic cooperation. The 
regrettable outcome of the same Crimean War made the 
Russian government face the irrefutable necessity of modernizing both the armed forces and the economy. As for 
the first track, American engineers made a considerable 
contribution to the rearmament, as for the second — to 
the construction and equipment of infrastructural facilities, inter alia the railroad between Moscow and Saint 
Petersburg, as well as the telegraph network. Similar 
cooperation was witnessed in the course of the First and 
especially the Second World Wars (Lend-Lease).

Another factor having a significant influence on US’ 

relationship with the Russian empire and subsequently 
the Soviet Union was the Russian emigration to the New 
World. It should not come as a surprise that ab initio the 
so-called Russian community in America was to the bet
НИР. Современная коммуникативистика (№ 3, 2017). 68:8–14

ences for the White movement (anti-bolshevists) ending 
up with the participation in the Allied intervention in the 
Russian Civil War (1918–1920). However, when in 1919 
the Lithuanian National Committee addressed the American 
government asking for recognition of their independence, 
the official response stated that the US still regard the 
Baltic States as an integral part of Russia [4]. This policy 
line was confirmed in 1920 by the Secretary of State 
Colby’s note on maintaining Russia’s territorial integrity. Such a stance definitely contradicted Britain, which 
would support separatists both in the Baltic and in the 
Caucasus regions.

After the foundation of the USSR (1922) the US were 

one of the last countries to reestablish diplomatic relations 
(1933) with the Russian State risen from the ashes. Given 
the paramount significance of this act, Washington sent 
to Moscow William Bullit, a prominent candidate who 
was considered an old friend of the Bolsheviks thanks to 
his diplomatic efforts at the Paris Peace Conference in 
1919. In particular, the first ambassador to the Soviet 
Union was known for having resigned from Woodrow 
Wilson’s staff after failing to convince the President to 
support the establishment of relations with the Bolshevik 
government back in 1920. Apart from that, Bullit’s treats 
and appearance are said to have been embodied in Bulgakov’s 
Voland, the principle character of ‘The Master and 
Margarita’, whereas its famous scene of Satan’s ball might 
have been inspired by one of the receptions at the American 
embassy in Moscow (Spaso House): another example of 
cross-cultural communication. Bullit’s counterpart, 
Alexander Troyanovsky, a close friend of Lenin, was also 
a distinguished statesman and occupied the post from 
1933 to 1938. By and large, these choices illustrate and 
justify that the nations would not appoint men of no 
importance as each other’s ambassadors.

World War II can be described as another phase of 

coming closer and fighting as brother-in-arms against 
Nazi Germany. Broadly speaking, it would boil down to 
the philosophy of ‘The enemy of my enemy is my friend’. 
Once the common enemy was defeated, the paths diverged 
again. The absolute trough in relations was apparently 
reached in October 1962 with the Cuban Missile Crisis 
when the Cold War came closest to turning into a nuclear conflict. Was it a point of no return?

Bound to be partners: a longstanding 
mutually beneficial coopetition

The development of the relations since 1962 reminds 

at some stages an old joke: 

An elderly couple has been married for a very long time. 

When they were asked whether, in all those years, they had 
ever thought of divorce, they replied, ‘Heavens no, murder 
yes, but divorce never.’

ter part comprised of people coming from the western 
parts of the country, above all from the Pale of Settlement, 
which encompassed modern Ukraine [13]. Unlike immigrants from other European countries, the vast majority of them belonged to ethnic and/or religious minorities 
and was predominantly Jewish. 

Overall, these people numerous to come to the US 

since the end of the XIX century did it mainly out of 
political and social reasons rather than out of economic 
ones. Moreover, the Russian government’s attitude to this 
phenomenon would be basically negative — to the point 
that such emigration from the judicial point of view was 
treated as illegal or quasi-illegal. Hence the immigrants’ 
idea of their ex-homeland: with few exceptions, they were 
not too eager to maintain contacts with their country of 
origin. This disposition did not play a positive role for 
strengthening bilateral links and interstate communiaction 
through compatriots abroad.

A more or less similar tendency can be traced through
out the XX century with all the four so-called waves of 
Russian emigration. Thus, the high potential of what now 
is supposed to be the mission of Rossotrudnichestvo has 
for a long time been underestimated and virtually unexplored. It is quite remarkable that the scope of application 
of the notorious Jackson-Vanik amendment, with the 
Soviet Union and the Russian Federation (till 2012) being subject thereto, was initially linked to the restriction 
of emigration.

Consequently, the Russian part of the US melting pot 

became one of the rather destructive factors in the relationship between the two countries. It appears to be 
definitely worth emphasizing that many emigrants, who 
used to take with them bad memories about Russia/USSR 
to their new home, came from territories of modern 
Ukraine — a fact largely depicted in popular culture [13]. 
Good instances thereof are movies like ‘Weather Is Good 
on Deribasovskaya, It Rains Again on Brighton Beach’ 
(1992) or ‘Lord of War’ (2005). 

As far as the successive development of relations 

between Saint Petersburg / Moscow–Washington is 
concerned, towards the beginning of the 20th century 
the honeymoon seemed to be over. Tensions in the Far 
East gained ground, so that during the Russo-Japanese 
War (1904–1905) US sympathies were apparently not 
on the Russian side. Still, Prime Minister Petr Stolypin 
(1906–1911) claimed that the United States would be 
Russia’s strategic partner not just on the political level, 
but also in the cultural dimension — unlike European 
countries [4].

The First World War led to some convergence (Nicholas 

II and Woodrow Wilson entered it as allies) but only for 
a short time. With the advent of the Russian Revolution 
in 1917 the US alongside some other Western countries 
first supported the rebels, then changed their prefer
Общие проблемы коммуникативистики

There was the détente, with joint efforts aimed at 

slowing down the arms race. One of its key tracks took 
the shape of several negotiations on nuclear disarmament 
and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, including two 
rounds of Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) held 
from 1969 to 1979, and bilateral treaties1. Still, following 
the course towards a ‘peaceful coexistence’ (reference to 
the Marxist-Leninist foreign policy doctrine) the sides 
did not always manage to come to terms: the Vietnam 
War (1955–1975), the Soviet War in Afghanistan 
(1979–1989) as well as other less bloody but also important events would be bones of contention on a global 
scale.

At the same time the nations which ‘shared the same 

biology regardless of ideology’, as Sting put it in 1985, 
still found some areas for collaboration. Thus, the ApolloSoyuz Test Project (1975) marked the end of the Space 
Race (1957–1975) between the two superpowers. Cooperation 
in space was continued after almost 20 years by the ShuttleMir Program (1994–1998) and the collective work on the 
International Space Station (1998 — present time). 

As the Soviet State was in the propinquity of the ul
timate termination of its existence, the Cold War appeared 
to be almost over. Its former opponents seemed to be 
quite ready to meet each other halfway, whereby the 
Eastern partners would go even further, for instance signing the Maritime Boundary Agreement (1990) which 
implied considerable benefits for the West. The nuclear 
dialogue was also carried on with the Intermediate-Range 
Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) in 1987 and finally the 
Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I) in 1991.

USSR’s eventual collapse was often construed as the 

end of the bipolar system (Pax Americana vs Pax Sovietica) 
and the onset of a completely new world order where 
nothing would hamper the reestablishment of relations 
between the two countries on a totally different basis. At 
first, this approach seemed to work: a growing interest 
for the Russian culture and language was witnessed in the 
US [2], whereas in the Russian Federation ‘Bush legs’ 
(popular expression to denote chicken leg quarters) 
alongside other goods imported and delivered as humanitarian aid from the West became tokens of the early 1990s. In general, pretty much everything — including 
disarmament (another START II signed in 1993) — was 
running smoothly. 

Nonetheless, the condition of ‘everything’s OK’ 

(a phrase which at that time became popular with many 
a Russian) was not a long-lasting one. It may be claimed 
that the new point of irreversible bifurcation in the relations emerged as early as in 1998 with the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia [6]. On the day this operation started 
(March 24), the Russian Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov 

1 SALT I (1969–1972), SALT II (1972–1979); LTBT = Limited Test Ban 

Treaty (1963), NTP = Non-Proliferation Treaty (1969), ABMT = 
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (1972).

was going to Washington on an official visit. Flying over 
the Atlantic, he received a phone call from the US Vice 
President Al Gore, informing him about the verdict on 
Kosovo. Primakov, as former Minister of Foreign Affairs 
(1996–1998), demonstrated a quick thinking and an even 
quicker reaction: the plane changed its course and started heading backwards. This episode inferred that Russia 
would no longer agree with every decision endorsed by 
the United States — a difficult disposition to enter together the new millennium [15].

The 21st century since its very beginning proved to be 

full of changes and challenges having an impact on the 
US-Russian international communication. As an outcome 
of the quasi-synchronous election cycles in the first decade, Vladimir Putin and George W. Bush became the new 
leaders of their respective countries.

Three months after 9/11 the American President an
nounced US’ withdrawal from the aforementioned ABM. 
The proponents of this step claimed that it would help to 
protect the United States from nuclear blackmail by rogue 
states and terrorists. As in almost every similar debate, 
there were ardent ‘abolitionists’ of the treaty as well as 
its fervent ‘retentionists’. According to the latter, denouncing ABM would cross out all the existing achievements 
and lead to a ‘world without effective legal constraints on 
nuclear proliferation’ [11]. Thereupon Russia in their 
turn withdrew from START II. As a substitute of a significantly lower caliber, the heads of the state signed the 
Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT) in 2002.

The Iraq War, which began in 2003, only amplified 

the deteriorating dynamics of the relations. Other benchmarks were the revolutions in Georgia (2003), Ukraine 
(2004), Kyrgyzstan and Lebanon (2005), the South Ossetia 
War (2008), the Arab (since 2010) and ultimately the 
Ukrainian (since 2014) spring. To cut a long story short, 
throughout the last 10 years the relationship we are tracing has been sequentially going down the drain.

Yet this continuous race to the bottom was for a short 

time interrupted in 2009 by a positive shift. At that time 
the two presidential cabinets were occupied respectively 
by Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama who decided to 
spur the feeble cooperation by making a ‘fresh start’. US 
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Russian Minister 
of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov symbolically pressed the 
‘reset button’, whereas their superiors established a bilateral presidential commission named after them. The 
Obama-Medvedev commission encompassed various 
areas from nuclear energy and nuclear security to specific questions like health, agriculture, control of drug 
trafficking as well as other related issues. Apart from that, 
the new leaders also saw fit to sing another nuclear arms 
reduction treaty, the New START (2010). 

Still, very soon disagreements on geopolitical matters 

and local conflicts, which did not directly concern the 

НИР. Современная коммуникативистика (№ 3, 2017). 68:8–14

partners’ national interests, would transform into concrete 
measures. The tools used for reflecting and embodying 
them tend basically to be in line with the lex talionis (‘an 
eye for an eye’): Richard Cheney’s Vilnius speech (2006) 
vs Vladimir Putin’s Munich speech (2007), Magnitsky 
Act (2012) vs Dima Yakovlev law (2012), the cases of 
Victor Bout, Konstantin Yaroshenko and others [9] vs 
the Edward Snowden affair, and so on and so forth, not 
to speak of the sanctions imposed with regard to the 
Ukrainian crisis.

It can hardly be more obvious that Russia and the US 

have different ideas of geopolitics and geo-economics, 
the developments on the international scene as well as 
their role therein. Luckily, they both have been pragmatic and smart enough not to break of the relations, 
continuing the negotiations. Will it also be the case in the 
future? Even if the bets be off, our forecast would be 
guardedly positive.

Conclusions

Having taken a brief look at the history of relations 

between Russia and the United States of America, we 
take the liberty of deriving therefrom the following findings.

First, as far as the current juncture and instability on 

the world arena are concerned, things are not that bad as 
they are sometimes treated and expounded. After having 
been on the verge of a direct armed conflict (Cuban 
Missile Crisis), not to mention the actual military actions 
in different parts of the world during the 20th century 
and the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War, the 
recent tensions should not cause exaggerated concern. It 
took the Russians and Americans quite a long time to 
establish a partnership (which sometimes got fragile) and 
to overcome much trickier gridlocks. In a nutshell, just 
look at what the parties have already gone through. Therefore, 
the odds for finding a way-out (modus vivendi and operandi) in today’s crises do not appear to be too low. In the 
final analysis, Cassandra should probably take a rest (at 
least for the time being), since in geopolitics there is no 
place for strong feelings, even if in everyday live those 
feelings may be hard to avoid. By and large, the incumbent 
Heads of State, Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, seem 
to realize it.

Second, it may sound as a platitude, but there is always 

space for improvement, especially given the circumstances. The countries, which have achieved a lot over 
more than 200 years, shall try to do even better looking 
for a common ground. Above all, they shall never stop 
the negotiating process both on a bilateral and multi
lateral basis, no matter what may come and how tense 
the atmosphere may get. The idea of interstate communication is simple: ‘agree to disagree’, but keep negotiating.

Third, in concrete terms the following areas appear 

to have a lot of potential for mutually beneficial cooperation with recourse to a pragmatic approach:
1) improve the ties with Russian compatriots in the US 

(one-way track, since there are not too many Americans 
living in Russia), particularly with those who still 
regard modern Ukraine as their ‘urheimat’;

2) give momentum to existing projects and launching 

new ones in the field of technical cooperation and 
modernization;

3) strengthen the economic links between the countries.

The third track, which we have scarcely touched upon 

in the present work, definitely needs a deeper insight for 
further consideration. Just to give a rough idea of the 
bilateral business cooperation one can state that in 2015 
the total trade turnover amounted to some 26 billion USD 
[8] — a sum not to be neglected in any analysis of the 
world economy and international flow of goods and services.

It would also be correct to complete the above items 

with the standard formula ‘as well as other measures’: 
nuclear agenda, human rights, law enforcement etc. All 
in all, the list can surely be defined as an open one.

Last but not least, before making a full stop in the 

present article we also would like to stress the crucial 
importance of the personal dimension of relations between 
the two countries. As we have seen from history, the identity of individuals in charge of policy-making and decisiontaking has always played a significant role. It concerns 
not only those who define the general course and strategy, but also people coping with the respective problems 
on a day-to-day basis. Talking about the latter, we especially mean ambassadors. In this context, with regard to 
their CVs the incumbent Russian post-holder Sergey 
Kislyak as well as his counterpart John Tefft give the 
impression of being the right men for the job.

To sum up, we would like to point out once again that 

this article does by no means pretend to provide an indepth insight into the nature of US-Russian relations and 
international communication. Its principal goal was to 
give a holistic picture thereof with regard to the memorable date Russians and Americans might celebrate this 
year. Emphasizing the imperishable value of further research in this field, we think that it will also remain key 
in the years to come. However, we look forward that in 
the near future the outlined problems will become history.

Общие проблемы коммуникативистики

Литература

1. Воевода Е.В. Глобализация, национальные интересы и 

межкультурная коммуникация [Текст] / Е.В. Воевода // 
Научные исследования и разработки. Современная коммуникативистика. — 2015. — Т. 4. — № 6. — С. 67–68.

2. Воевода Е.В. Межкультурная коммуникация в поликуль
турном образовательном пространстве [Текст] / Е.В. Воевода // Научные исследования и разработки. Современная коммуникативистика. — 2016. — Т. 5. — № 3. — 
С. 24–28.

3. Райнхардт Р.О. Полуостров сокровищ: перспективы со
здания особой экономической зоны в Крыму [Текст] / 
Р.О. Райнхардт, И.Р. Тазутдинов // Финансовый бизнес. — 
2014. — № 2. — С. 3–9.

4. Ascher A.P.A. Stolypin: The Search for Stability in Late Imperial 

Russia. Redwood City, Stanford University Press, 2002. 484 p.

5. Heath E. Realism in British Foreign Policy. Foreign Affairs, 

1969, no. 10, pp. 39–50.

6. Ivanov I.S. The New Russian Diplomacy. Washington, Brookings 

Institution Press, 2002. 204 p.

7. Midgley D. Ukraine — Russia crisis: Could this be the start of 

World War III? Available at: http://www.express.co.uk/news/
world/470866/Ukraine-Russia-crisis-Could-this-be-the-start-ofWorld-War-III/

8. Russian-American Business Cooperation. Available at: http://

www.russianembassy.org/page/russian-american-businesscooperation/

9. Schreck C. From Tsar to Snowden, US-Russian Extradition 

Deal Saw Quiet Demise. Available at: http://en.ria.ru/world/ 
20130629/181944016/Tsar-Alexander-to-Snowden-US-RussianExtradition-Deal-Treaty-Saw-Demise.html

10. Simpson J. What are the chances of a third world war? Available 

at: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-26271024/

11. Stent A. The Limits of Partnership: U.S.-Russian Relations in 

the Twenty-First Century. Princeton, Princeton University Press, 
2015. 408 p.

12.  Trenin D. Should We Fear Russia? (Global Futures). Cambridge, 

Polity, 2016. 144 p.

13.  Wilson A. The Ukrainians: Unexpected Nation. 4th revised 

edition. New Haven, Yale University Press, 2015. 416 p.

14.  Winchell W. Howz about calling the Russians our Frienemies? 

Nevada State Journal. Gannett Company, 1953, May, 19.

15. Zonova T., Reinhardt R. Main Vectors of Russia’s Foreign 

Policy (1991–2014). Rivista di Studi Politici Internazionali, 2014, 
vol. 87, no. 4, pp. 501–516.

References

1. Vlasova O. Budushchee ekonomicheskikh otnosheniy Rossii 

Voevoda E.V. Mezhkul’turnaja kommunikacija v polikul’turnom 
obrazovatel’nom prostranstve [Cross-cultural Communication 
in Multi-Ethnic Educational Space]. Nauchnye issledovanija i 
razrabotki. Sovremennaja kommunikativistika [Scientific research 
and development. Modern communication skills]. 2016, v. 5, 
i. 3, pp. 24–28.

2. Voevoda E.V. Globalizacija, nacional’nye interesy i mezhkul’turnaja 

kommunikacija [Globalization, National Interests and Cross-cultural 
communication]. Nauchnye issledovanija i razrabotki. Sovremennaja 
kommunikativistika [Scientific research and development. Modern 
communication skills]. 2015, v. 4, i. 6, pp. 67–68.

3. Raynkhardt R.O., Tazutdinov I.R. Poluostrov sokrovishh: per
spektivy sozdanija osoboj jekonomicheskoj zony v Krymu 
[Treasure peninsula: prospects for the establishment of a 
special economic zone in Crimea]. Finansovyj biznes [Financial 
business]. 2014, i. 2, pp. 3–9.

4. Ascher A.P.A. Stolypin: The Search for Stability in Late Imperial 

Russia. Redwood City, Stanford University Press, 2002. 484 p.

5. Heath E. Realism in British Foreign Policy. Foreign Affairs, 

1969, no. 10, pp. 39–50.

6. Ivanov I.S. The New Russian Diplomacy. Washington, Brookings 

Institution Press, 2002. 204 p.

7. Midgley D. Ukraine – Russia crisis: Could this be the start of 

World War III? Available at: http://www.express.co.uk/news/
world/470866/Ukraine-Russia-crisis-Could-this-be-the-start-ofWorld-War-III/

8. Russian-American Business Cooperation. Available at: http://

www.russianembassy.org/page/russian-american-businesscooperation/

9. Schreck C. From Tsar to Snowden, US-Russian Extradition 

Deal Saw Quiet Demise. Available at: http://en.ria.ru/world/ 
20130629/181944016/Tsar-Alexander-to-Snowden-US-RussianExtradition-Deal-Treaty-Saw-Demise.html/

10. Simpson J. What are the chances of a third world war? Available 

at: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-26271024/

11. Stent A. The Limits of Partnership: U.S.-Russian Relations in 

the Twenty-First Century. Princeton, Princeton University Press, 
2015. 408 p.

12.  Trenin D. Should We Fear Russia? (Global Futures). Cambridge, 

Polity, 2016. 144 p.

13. Wilson A. The Ukrainians: Unexpected Nation. 4th revised edi
tion. New Haven, Yale University Press, 2015. 416 p.

14. Winchell W. Howz about calling the Russians our Frienemies? 

Nevada State Journal. Gannett Company, 1953, May, 19.

15. Zonova T., Reinhardt R. Main Vectors of Russia’s Foreign 

Policy (1991–2014). Rivista di Studi Politici Internazionali, 2014, 
vol. 87. no. 4, pp. 501–516.

НИР. Современная коммуникативистика (№ 3, 2017). 68:8–14