Mikhail Troitskiy
Mikhail Troitskiy is a visiting scholar at the Harvard University Davis Center for Russian Studies and a visiting professor at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University. In 2023-24 he was Professor of Practice at University of Wisconsin-Madison. In 2017-2022 he was Dean of and Associate Professor at the MGIMO School of Government and International Affairs in Moscow and IMARES Program Professor at the European University at St. Petersburg. He holds the degree of Candidate of Sciences (kandidat nauk) in Political Science and International Relations awarded in 2003 by the Institute for the U.S. and Canadian Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences.
From December 2009 to March 2016, Troitskiy worked as deputy director, program officer, and attorney at the Russia office of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. In 2007-2009, Troitskiy served as deputy dean at MGIMO's School of Political Affairs. He held visiting fellowships at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, DC (2005-06), as well as at Cambridge (2006) and Oxford (2008) Universities. In 2000-2009, he was deputy director and acting director at the Academic Educational Forum on International Relations, a Moscow-based NGO promoting scholarship and training in the field of international relations.
Troitskiy has authored and edited several research monographs and published book chapters with Cambridge University Press, Palgrave, McGill-Queen's University Press, Johns Hopkins University Press, Praeger, Nomos Verlag, and SIPRI. His articles have appeared in Survival, The American Interest, Air and Space Power Journal, Russian Politics and Law, and others. Troitskiy's research interests include Russian foreign policy, conflicts in Eurasia, US-Russia relations, arms control and international security, and negotiation theory.
Troitskiy is a member of the Program on New Approaches to Research and Security in Eurasia (PONARS Eurasia) and the Steering Committee of the Processes of International Negotiation (PIN) group of researchers. His has contributed op-eds and comments to major international media, including The International New York Times, The Moscow Times, CNN, NPR, BBC, and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
From December 2009 to March 2016, Troitskiy worked as deputy director, program officer, and attorney at the Russia office of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. In 2007-2009, Troitskiy served as deputy dean at MGIMO's School of Political Affairs. He held visiting fellowships at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, DC (2005-06), as well as at Cambridge (2006) and Oxford (2008) Universities. In 2000-2009, he was deputy director and acting director at the Academic Educational Forum on International Relations, a Moscow-based NGO promoting scholarship and training in the field of international relations.
Troitskiy has authored and edited several research monographs and published book chapters with Cambridge University Press, Palgrave, McGill-Queen's University Press, Johns Hopkins University Press, Praeger, Nomos Verlag, and SIPRI. His articles have appeared in Survival, The American Interest, Air and Space Power Journal, Russian Politics and Law, and others. Troitskiy's research interests include Russian foreign policy, conflicts in Eurasia, US-Russia relations, arms control and international security, and negotiation theory.
Troitskiy is a member of the Program on New Approaches to Research and Security in Eurasia (PONARS Eurasia) and the Steering Committee of the Processes of International Negotiation (PIN) group of researchers. His has contributed op-eds and comments to major international media, including The International New York Times, The Moscow Times, CNN, NPR, BBC, and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
less
Related Authors
InterestsView All (10)
Uploads
Papers by Mikhail Troitskiy
Unlike the times of the Cold War when confrontation between the superpowers, in part fueled by ideological differences, divided societies across the Third World, today’s domestic polarization is not induced by global trends. In most cases, the sources of current polarization are purely domestic. They include economic grievance and the tension between equality for all from the perspective of political rights, on one hand, and the growing inequality among the same people from the perspective of accumulated wealth, incomes, and actual ability to have their voices heard, on the other. But can the reverse dynamic also occur whereby domestic divisions lead to intensified competition of ideas at the level of international community?
The United States and Russia have a long history of concerns with surprise leaps in each other’s ability to exercise power. The current “scare” phase of presumed ongoing mutual subversion has particularly dire consequences for the bilateral relationship. For example, most negotiations between Washington and Moscow, including those on arms control, are doomed to fail given increased fears of exploitation by an opponent who is believed to be in possession of superior statecraft.
Unlike the times of the Cold War when confrontation between the superpowers, in part fueled by ideological differences, divided societies across the Third World, today’s domestic polarization is not induced by global trends. In most cases, the sources of current polarization are purely domestic. They include economic grievance and the tension between equality for all from the perspective of political rights, on one hand, and the growing inequality among the same people from the perspective of accumulated wealth, incomes, and actual ability to have their voices heard, on the other. But can the reverse dynamic also occur whereby domestic divisions lead to intensified competition of ideas at the level of international community?
The United States and Russia have a long history of concerns with surprise leaps in each other’s ability to exercise power. The current “scare” phase of presumed ongoing mutual subversion has particularly dire consequences for the bilateral relationship. For example, most negotiations between Washington and Moscow, including those on arms control, are doomed to fail given increased fears of exploitation by an opponent who is believed to be in possession of superior statecraft.
Few scholars have focused on the negotiation process or brought together the whole variety of seemingly disparate yet comparable cases. This volume, edited by two global security experts - one from Canada and one from Russia - examines negotiations that continue after the “hot phase” of a conflict has ended and the focus becomes the search for lasting security solutions. Tug of War brings together conflict and security experts from Russia, Eurasia, and the West to tackle the overarching question: how useful has the process of negotiation been in resolving or mitigating different conflicts and coordination problems in Eurasia, compared to attempts at exploiting or achieving a decisive advantage over one’s opponents?