Change and continuity in Russian-US academic exchange programmes. A temporal analysis. 1946-2015

In April 2013, the leader of North Korea Kim Jong-un ordered that missiles were ready to launch at the American military bases in Japan, Guam and South Korea. Russia and China condemned actions of North Korea and supported UN sanctions against this country. In late July 2013, Russian Federation granted political asylum to Edward Snowden, the former NSA contractor. He was wanted by the US prosecutor's office in connection with espionage. This episode worsened the US-Russian political relations further. It also led to the cancellation of the scheduled meeting between Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama in September BBC: USA Obama cancels Putin meeting over Snowden asylum (August 7, 2013) http://www.bbc.com/news/23605507 .

On February 2014, after the crash of V. Yanukovych's government in Ukraine, Russian Federation annexed Crimea by conducting a phased referendum there. The US accused Russian government of violating international law. During the spring of 2014, unrests in eastern Ukraine spread. US-Russian relations soured. On July 16 2014, the US President Barack Obama announced sanctions against the RF. On the next day, Malaysia Airlines Flight

17 was shot down in the eastern part of Ukraine Angela E. Stent The Limits of Partnership: U.S.-Russian Relations in the Twenty-First Century. Princeton University Press (2014) http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i10483.pdf . Therefore, relations between the US and Russia deteriorated further. It is considered that Russian-US relations are at their worst state since the Cold war due to the situation in Ukraine.

On February 12 2015, the United States, Russian Federation, the representatives of Ukraine and members of the European Union signed the new "Minsk agreement" aimed to stop war in Donbass. On May 12 2015, John Kerry (the US Secretary of State) met with Vladimir Putin and Sergei Lavrov (Foreign Minister of RF) in Sochi. They discussed a cooperation between Russia and the United States on issues of international security and peace. On September 18 2015, Russia and the US resumed their military relations in fighting against the ISIS. On September 29 2015, Russian President Vladimir Putin arrived to New York City to discuss with the US President Barack Obama the situation in Syria, including the Islamic State. Russian side suggested the United States to join the Baghdad centre of information launched by Iraq, Iran, Russia and Syria for coordination their military efforts. However, this proposal was declined by the US. On 30 September 2015, Russia started an air campaign on the side of Bashar al-Assad, the head of the Syrian government Ibid..

On 20 October 2015, V. Putin met with Bashar Assad in Moscow. They discussed a future political settlement in Syria and their joint military campaign. The United States sharply condemned this action. A disagreement about the Syrian settlement between Russian Federation and the United States was highlighted during the two rounds of the peace talks, regarding Syria, which were conducted in Vienna in October-November 2015 Ibid.. Then there was a bilateral meeting of V. Putin and B. Obama at the G-20 Summit in Turkey. It was reported after the meeting, that a certain consensus was reached The Guardian G20: Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin agree to Syrian-led transition (16 November 2015) http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/16/g20-barack-obama-and-vladimir-putin-agree-to-syrian-led-transition. On December 18 of 2015, the UN, the United States and Russian Federation approved the resolution, which brings together international efforts aimed at finding a solution to end the Syrian civil war, in Austria.

3. Chapter iii change and continuity in russian-us academic exchange programmes

3.1 Institution of Academic Exchange in Russian-American cooperation: history and development

Before the beginning of Cold War, there were no Russian-American educational connections in their modern sense. Whereas there were some unorganized educational and cultural contacts between these two countries. In 1917, Bolshevik government came to power and stopped all the cultural and educational collaborations between Russia and the rest of the world. Since then, all cultural contacts became carried out exclusively by government agencies of Soviet Russia and then the Soviet Union, and only in clearly defined limits and with equally clearly defined objectives. Political and ideological confrontation between Soviet Russia and the capitalist world, established almost from the first weeks after the October 1917, necessitated the creation of a control system for the exchange of culture and education in the United States as well Ivanyan E. Cultural aspects of US-RUSSIAN RELATIONS http://www.rusus.ru/?act=read&id=23 .

In general, during the second half of the 1920s - early 1930s, cultural and educational connections between the Soviet Union and the United States were not only a very meager, but it can be argued, were extremely unproductive. Since 1939, when the Soviet Union was virtually isolated from Europe and the rest of the world, and over the next 14 years, a cultural exchange between the USSR and the USA, already episodic and limited in scope, in fact, was not. During the Second World War, the US media was complying a tacit recommendation of Washington to refrain from criticizing the Allies. The Soviet media followed a similar strategy. There could be a prerequisite for the development of cultural and educational collaboration. However, it did not happen Ibid..

After World War II, sphere of cultural exchange became an arena of ideological struggle between the Soviet Union and the United States. Cold War raged, covering all areas of the long-awaited post-war cooperation of former military allies without exception.

The first attempts to restore at least some cultural and educational relations between the USSR and the USA were made in 1955. During the preparations for XX-th Congress of the CPSU (February 1956), the party authorities of the country decided to emphasize the desire of the Soviet Union to ease an international tension and to strengthen a peace. The expansion of cultural relations was considered the most effective way to restore mutual understanding between the USSR and the USA. However, in the autumn of 1956 the Suez crisis began, it faced the interests of the US and the USSR. Mutual agreements on cultural exchanges were canceled. But this tension in Soviet-American relations was not long-lasting Ibid..

The first Agreement between the USSR and the USA on exchanges in science, technology, education, culture and other areas (known informally as the "Lacy-Zarubin Agreement") was signed in January 27, 1958 in Washington. It was the starting point for the future academic partnership. The Soviet side was the initiator of this Agreement. According to the Soviet side, including into the implementation of this agreement the US government agencies, namely the State Department and the US Information Agency, was able to make a scientific and cultural exchange between the two countries more bureaucratized and subordinated to the authorities of both countries. However, the opportunity to work in American archives and libraries emerged with this Agreement. MSU Professors of American studies used this opportunity and published numerous scientific papers MSU, Department of Modern and Contemporary History of Europe and America http://www.hist.msu.ru/Departments/ModernHist/node/90 .

On the basis of the 1958 Agreement, an Agreement on the exchange of scientists in the field of natural sciences between the USSR Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Sciences of the United States was signed in 1959. This agreement provided the exchange of 30 research assistants from each side. In 1961, a working paper on the exchange of scholars in the social sciences between the Academy of Sciences of the USSR and the American Board of cognitive societies was adopted USSR Academy of Sciences the US SCIENTIFIC INSTITUTIONS: MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL COOPERATION old.nasledie.ru/politvne/18_9/article.php?art=67 . In the late 1950s was the first time American undergraduate and graduate students came to study in the USSR in Leningrad State University (12 pers.) and Moscow State University (1 pers.), mainly to study the Russian language. Since 1962, about 30 Americans (students, interns, graduate students) annually visited the Soviet institutions of higher education for a period of one or two semesters Arefiev A. AMERICAN STUDENTS IN RUSSIA report at the annual conference of Fulbright Alumni April 18, 2011.

In May 1960, American spy plane U-2 was shot down over the Soviet territory. Soviet-American relations became strained again. Cultural and educational connections between the USSR and the United States was suffered by another blow. In 1962, the Cuban missile crisis began. This pushed the cultural and educational cooperation between the two countries even further into the background. In 1963-64 the Soviet and American sides started again to look for a ways of mutual understanding in cultural and educational sphere. But again, as many times in the past, politics intervened in cultural cooperation. Another complication of the international situation raised because of the Prague events of August 1968 and the beginning of the war in Vietnam Website of the U. S. Department of State, Office of the Historian Washington, DC United States Relations with Russia: The Cold War http://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/85895.htm .

In the run-up to May 1972 (the arrival of the US president R. Nixon for talks with L. Brezhnev was scheduled) reappeared a positive movement in the cultural and educational exchanges. After the exchange of visits of Soviet and American leaders in 1972-1974, from which the "dйtente" of international tension began, cultural and educational ties between the two countries were intensified again. In 1973, Nixon, the first U.S. President to travel to Moscow, and Brezhnev signed an agreement on exchanges in science, technology, education and culture; and a Declaration of Basic Principles of Mutual Relations Ibid.. In 1973, the Fulbright program started in the USSR Website of Fulbright program in Russia http://www.fulbright.ru/ . In 1973, six of the Soviet and American scientists received grants of the program for research and lecturing, thus laying a solid foundation for bilateral academic cooperation. Since 1974, in the leading Russian universities (Moscow State University, MGIMO, Institute of USA and Canada Studies, and others) American professors, visiting Fulbright, began the annual lectures about the US.

There were the Fulbright program (only one US-Russian exchange program) and the agreements of the USSR Academy of Sciences with American universities and research centers during the period of Cold War. The whole institution of US-Russian academic exchange became forming. In our opinion, at this point a long process of institutionalization of the Russian-American academic exchange completed. It is necessary to mention that it is a conditional border of the completion of the institutionalization process. Distinct boundaries of the beginning and the end of this process cannot be identified. Further, the institution has been strengthening its position, expanding and formalizing. That is, speaking in terms of the theory of path dependence, the trajectory of the development was set; and it started to evolve along a predetermined path.

In the late 1970-s the USSR Academy of Sciences signed many academic exchange agreements with the US Scientific Institutions on physics, chemistry and biology. These agreements were signed by the Presidents of both Scientific Academies within the General governmental Agreement. For example, in the late 1970s - early 1980s, academic exchange was functioning within a framework of a governmental agreement of 1973 between the USSR and the USA on the contacts, exchanges and cooperation. In 1977, according to the agreements, the Academy of Sciences of the USSR could accept in its institutes up to 500 American scientists per year as well as could depart to the United States the same number of Soviet scientists. In addition to the exchange, there were other forms of academic scientific cooperation: trips for scientists from both countries to national scientific conferences, joint symposia on topical scientific issues, and collaborative researches USSR Academy of Sciences the US SCIENTIFIC INSTITUTIONS: MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL COOPERATION old.nasledie.ru/politvne/18_9/article.php?art=67 . The total number of Americans trained in high schools of the Soviet Union during the period from 1970 to 1980 was 868. The center of their "academic attraction", as well as in 1950-1960, was the Leningrad State University Arefiev A. AMERICAN STUDENTS IN RUSSIA report at the annual conference of Fulbright Alumni April 18, 2011.

Confrontation of the USA and the Soviet Union became subside since the beginning of 1984. Positive changes in Soviet-American relations were also influenced by the coming to power of M. Gorbachev in the Soviet Union (1985). The first meeting of Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev took place in Geneva (1985). During this meeting, they were able to meet personally and signed agreements on exchanges in science, culture and education. In addition, the two leaders expressed the need for negotiations on nuclear weapons US History, materials http://www.ushistory.ru/stati/540-otsenka-effektivnosti-mezhdunarodnoj-obrazovatelnoj-politiki-sssr-i-ssha-v-gody-holodnoj-vojny.html . From 1981 to 1985, the number of US citizens enrolled in Soviet higher education amounted to 884 people (200 people per year an average). In the late 1980s - early 1990s, American students, interns, graduate students appeared in Volgograd, Ivanovo, Lviv, Minsk, Novosibirsk, Orel, Pyatigorsk, Cheboksary. At the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Americans (several hundred people) attended the 48 Soviet universities, including 16 universities in Moscow and 6 in Leningrad Arefiev A. AMERICAN STUDENTS IN RUSSIA report at the annual conference of Fulbright Alumni April 18, 2011.

The US Institute of International Education provides statistics about their participants from different places of origin, including the USSR. This is a part of the table of statistics "International Students: All Places of Origin (Selected Years: 1949/50 - 1989/1990)" Open Doors Institute of International Education http://www.iie.org/Research-and-Publications/Open-Doors/Data/International-Students/All-Places-of-Origin/1950-2000 :

This table provides an information about the number of participants from the USSR during the period of Cold War. There are many gaps in the table, but the general picture could be seen. It is seen that in the beginning of 1970-s the number became increasing. In the end of 1970-s - beginning of 1980-s this number was in its peak - 600 students and researches. From 1980-s to the beginning of 1990-s the numbers were also significant comparing with the numbers of the previous years. It is necessary to pay attention to the fact that at the end of 1970s, according to our opinion, the process of institutionalization of the Russian-American academic exchange completed.

Centre for Sociological Research of the Ministry of Education and Science of Russia also provides statistics on the number of American students in the USSR during the Cold War. Information was summarized by Arefiev A. (Deputy. Director of Research in the Center for Sociological Research of Ministry of Education and Science of Russia) in the table below Arefiev A. AMERICAN STUDENTS IN RUSSIA report at the annual conference of Fulbright Alumni April 18, 2011:

Information in this table is also incomplete. However, it is seen that in particular years the number of coming students from both sides were more or less equal: 35 in 1964, 51 and 49 in 1969. As already was marked, from 1970 to 1980 there were 868 American students in the USSR. If we summarize the numbers of USSR students in the US during this period, we will have 686, but most of the years are missed in the first table. Therefore, we can suppose that the number of students from both sides were also more or less equal. The number of students in those years were distinctly regulated by governmental agreements. It also allows us to make such a conclusion. From 1981 to 1985, the number of US citizens enrolled in Soviet higher education were 200 people per year an average. In 1984, 230 students from the USSR came to study in the USA. As a result, it is clear that academic mobility from both sides was approximately equal.

After the collapse of the USSR, academic partnerships and exchanges between Russia and the United States began to develop rapidly. The number of academic exchange participants from both sides grown exponentially. American international exchange programs, such as IREX, were launched in Russia since 1992 Website of the International Research and Exchanges Board (IREX) in Russia http://www.irex.ru/programs/ugrad/about . Nowadays there are 9 American international programs for Russian students and researchers, according to the United States Department of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs Exchange Programs: 1) Global UGrad, 2) Teaching Excellence and Achievement Program (TEA), 3) Study of the U.S. Institutes for Scholars, 4) Study of the U.S. Institutes for Student Leaders, 5) Fulbright Foreign Language Teaching Assistant (FLTA), 6) Fulbright Scholar-in-Residence Program, 7) Fulbright Arctic Initiative, 8) Fulbright Visiting Scholar Program, 9) Fulbright Foreign Student Program Website of the U. S. Department of State. Exchanges http://exchanges.state.gov/non-us/search/ . All of them, except the Fulbright Program, began to function in Russia since 1992.

After the collapse of the USSR the number of US citizens who travel for training purposes to the Russian high school, significantly increased - on the average over 1000 people came in the 1990s and from 1500 to almost 2000 in the 2000s. The number of universities, which educational services American citizens were using, increased correspondingly. For example, in 2008/2009 academic year, American students, interns, graduate students (a total of 1798 people) taught full-time at 102 universities of the Russian Federation (in 2004/2005 - at 98 universities), located in 46 Russian cities. Noteworthy is that, as during the Soviet period, American citizens preferred to study at universities in St. Petersburg and in the universities of Moscow (74.5% of the whole contingent). In turn, there were 4,908 Russian citizens in the 2008/2009 academic year in the United States. The number of Russian students in American universities and colleges in 2000 was about 7,000 people Arefiev A. AMERICAN STUDENTS IN RUSSIA report at the annual conference of Fulbright Alumni April 18, 2011.

These facts suggest a stagnation in Russian-American educational cooperation in terms of mutual training students throughout the 2000s. We summarized data from the US Institute of International Education and from the Centre for Sociological Research of the Ministry of Education and Science of Russia (the report by A. Arefiev in April 2011) in the table bellow Open Doors Institute of International Education http://www.iie.org/Research-and-Publications/Open-Doors/Data/International-Students/All-Places-of-Origin/1950-2000 & Arefiev A. AMERICAN STUDENTS IN RUSSIA report at the annual conference of Fulbright Alumni April 18, 2011:

Looking to this data, it is obvious that the academic mobility from Russia to the US is more intensive than from the US to Russia. In the Soviet period, these numbers were more or less equal. Usually, according to inter-universities agreements and requirements of international exchange programs, there should be a balance of academic mobility. If there is no balance, it should be achieved during 3-5 years. However, there were no balance in 1990-s as well as in 2000-s. This phenomenon of stagnation in Russian-US academic exchange (in terms of unequal students mobility) could be considered as an internal factor that affect (namely, slows) the development of the institution as a whole.

In the period since 2012, themes of confrontation between Russia and the United States are the situation in Syria and North Korea, missile defense, the position of non-profit organizations in Russia, "Magnitsky Act" and the "law of Dima Yakovlev ", Granting by Russia an asylum to Edward Snowden. The United States supported Euromaidan in Ukraine in 2013 - 2014 years. In March 2014, there was a dramatic strain of relations between the two countries in connection with the so-called Crimean crisis. There is an opinion that Russian-American relations cooled down as ever for the entire period from 1991, and were characterized as the advent of Cold War II Mauldin J. The Colder War Has Begun. (29 October 2014) Forbes. Retrieved 26 December 2014. It is reflected in the operation of the Institution of academic exchange between Russia and the United States.

P. Koshkin published many articles about the current situation in US-Russian academic exchange: "Although the Ukrainian crisis has all but negated any achievements of the U.S.-Russia reset and brought U.S.-Russia relations to their lowest level since the end of the Cold War, nobody really expected the Kremlin to close the Future Leaders Exchange (FLEX) educational program. For two decades, this program brought together more than 8,000 from Russia" Koshkin P. The uncertain future of US-Russia educational exchanges (Nov 5, 2014) http://www.russia-direct.org/analysis/uncertain-future-us-russia-educational-exchanges . "At the same time, exchanges were also affected by the U.S. moves - including a $30 million funding cut for the Fulbright Program and the closure of the Moscow office of the Kennan Institute, an outlet that fostered U.S.-Russia academic exchange. Moreover, last year U.S. Congress announced that it would withdraw funding from the Title VIII Grant Program that supports regional studies of Russia and former Soviet countries" Ibid..

The current foreign policy of Russia and the U.S. is influencing on academic exchanges between countries. Probably, the reason is that all the educational exchange programs (except the Fulbright program) were created within another political reality (in 1990-s). "Regardless of the difficult times in U.S.-Russia relations and the diminished focus on educational programs, some experts agree that the interest in academic exchange is still alive, even though now it is much more difficult to deal with it than previously. Alexander Abashkin, a former Director of International Programs at the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy (RANEPA), and currently the Head of a similar department at the School of Public Policy (one of RANEPA's major institutions), has been dealing with international exchange programs for the last 20 years. His experience indicates that, despite the lack of understanding between Russian and American politicians, there is increasing understanding between the U.S.-Russia academic communities" Ibid.. dependence political evolution path

In times of uncertainty around international exchange programs for Russian and American students established on the state level, a great deal of hope is now placed on the potential for inter-university exchanges. "Exchanges are still going on, yet given the current political situation and its difficulties, we are looking for some alternative options of the so-called transnational education when universities create their programs abroad" Ibid., Abashkin commented. We summarized data from the US Institute of International Education about recent years in the table below. We used two types of data: "International Students: All Places of Origin Open Doors Institute of International Education http://www.iie.org/Research-and-Publications/Open-Doors/Data/International-Students/All-Places-of-Origin " (about Russian students going to the US) and "U.S. Study Abroad: All Destinations Open Doors Institute of International Education http://www.iie.org/Research-and-Publications/Open-Doors/Data/US-Study-Abroad/All-Destinations " (about American students going to Russia):

Using this data, it is seen that the number of American students decreased from 2011 to the previous year by 300 persons. It is not a critical decreasing. About Russians, the number is still increasing, all the dynamics are positive. At the state level exchange programs such as FLEX and Fulbright, there are difficulties on the background of foreign policy. As for the inter-university agreements, the exchange continues to function there.

Russian high schools with an enrollment of the largest number of US citizens: 1) Saint Petersburg State University; 2) Saint Petersburg State Polytechnical University; 3) International University in Moscow; 4) Russian State Pedagogical University Hertzen (Saint Petersburg); 5) Russian State University for the Humanities; 6) MSU. M. Lomonosov; 7) Moscow Art Theatre. A. Chekhov; 8) Nevsky Institute of Language and Culture; 9) Astrakhan State University; 10) Tomsk State University; 11) Kazan State University. V. Lenin; 12) Voronezh State University; 13) Nizhny Novgorod State University. N. Lobachevsky; 14) MGIMO; 15) HSE Arefiev A. AMERICAN STUDENTS IN RUSSIA report at the annual conference of Fulbright Alumni April 18, 2011. These universities and many others in Russia have mutual agreements with the US universities and colleges.

However, the balance of out-going and incoming academic mobility between the US and Russia is still unequal. The number of students from Russia is bigger. It could be a problem for the future academic partnership. It is an internal factor contributed. We consider, Russia (particularly Russian students and researches) is more interested in the academic exchange with the US. In the situation of decline of ruble, it became cheaper for Americans to come to the Russian Federation and vice versa, it became more expensive for Russians to go to the US. Here could be a possibility for stabilizing the balance of academic mobility.

Those have the institution of academic exchange between the US and Russia is now at the point of transformation - the exchange rate slowed down. This is actually a research problem of our study. Because the future state of the institution depends on the decision taken at the critical juncture. It should be noted that academic communities of both countries are interested in and continue the exchange, in spite of the current difficulties. It shows that in the previous critical juncture the path has been set and persists to the present moment. Thus, we can say that the evolution of the institution as a whole takes place in a cyclic model (which includes a rise and fall against the background of changing foreign policy).

In order to visualize the dynamics of formation and development of the institution, we decided to build a chart-line of institutional development. It is based on the quantitative data, namely, the number of students who have used the possibility of international academic exchange between Russia and the United States, during the analyzed period (1946-2015). We made a statistical table by years (see it in Annex); which includes a number of students from the US who have come to study in Russia (USSR) and the number of Russian exchange students who have traveled to America See Annex. For each year, we took the total number of students from both sides. We consider the number of students, who use the possibility of academic exchange, demonstrates the level of development of the whole institution. That is, the more exchange students, the higher the level of institutional development, and vice versa.

The horizontal line is temporal. It is conventionally divided into two periods in the vital activity of the Academic Exchange Institution between the US and Russia: 1) the period of institutionalization (or origination of the institution), and 2) the period of operation of the institution that lasts to the present day. The vertical line represents the level of institutional development. The main blue line on the graph reflects the evolution of the Academic Exchange Institution between Russia and the United States, including the points of change (or transition) in development.

3.2 The main critical junctures and their impact on the evolution of the Institution of Academic Exchange between the US and Russia

On the basis of historical data presented in the second chapter, we identified critical junctures in Russian-US foreign policy, which caused changes in institutional development. Another words, they are the points that led to change or continuity on institutional trajectory. We trace critical junctures since 1958, because the first agreement on international academic exchange between the Soviet Union and the United States was signed in 1958. It is a moment when the institution was de facto launched. Before that, there were only attempts to launch the process of academic exchange between the US and Russia, but they were unsuccessful.

The first agreement was signed during the Cold War. Therefore, the analysis of US-Russian (USSR) foreign policy begins since 1946 (the beginning of the Cold War). It is necessary to trace the political trend from its beginning to understand its essence and influence on the process of academic exchange. Definitely, 1946 is a critical juncture on the political trajectory; but we do not take it into account, because there was no academic exchange institution at that time.

1) The first critical juncture we consider - January 27, 1958. Because on this day, the "Lacy-Zarubin Agreement" (the first Agreement between the USSR and the USA on exchanges in science, technology, education, culture and other areas) was signed. It was the starting point for the future academic partnership.

2) The second critical juncture - 1962, the Cuban missile crisis. It pushed the cultural and educational cooperation between the two countries even further into the background.

3) The third critical juncture - is the beginning of 1970s. Tensions between the superpowers began to decline in 1970s. Then Nixon arrived to Moscow to meet with Brezhnev. Both presidents proclaimed the beginning of new policy of "dйtente".

4) The fourth critical juncture is 1980. There were contradictions in the Third World, the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan; the US imposed embargoes on technology and grain supplies to the Soviet Union and demanded to increase military expenditure.

5) The fifth critical juncture is 1985. M. Gorbachev became a General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee. It accelerated "dйtente" between the two states. Due to Gorbachev's actions, Reagan decided to renew negotiations, regarding the reduction of the arms race and economic matters. During the first meeting in Geneva in 1985, two leaders agreed to reduce nuclear capabilities by 50 percent.

6) The sixth critical juncture is 1991. On 25 December 1991, the Soviet Union was officially dissolved. G. H. W. Bush and M. Gorbachev declared that the Cold War is over. After the collapse of the USSR, foreign relations between the United States and Russia greatly improved and continued to develop.

7) The seventh critical juncture is 2003. In 2003, Russian administration opposed the US invasion of Iraq. Although Russia did not use its veto power in the UN Security Council. Tension in relations arose, but not for long.

8) The eighth critical juncture is 2007-2008 years. In 2007, the United States publicly announced their decision to establish a missile defence installation in Poland. Russian authorities considered it as a potential threat. In 2008, Russian-US relations were strained because of Russian invasion of Georgia.

9) The ninth critical juncture is 2012. On May 6 2012, the campaign, called the "March of Millions", was held in Moscow in order to protest against the inauguration of Vladimir Putin. Then clashes with the police and detention of protesters began. The US Congress and the American human rights organization "Freedom House" condemned repression against the Russian opposition. In August 2012, Russian "Akula-class" submarine patrolled the territory near the Gulf of Mexico being undetected. On 14 December 2012, the US President Barack Obama signed "Magnitsky Act". On 28 December 2012, V. Putin responded by signing the "law of Dima Yakovlev".

During the period after 2012 to the present time, foreign policy positions of Russia and the United States are confrontational. In late July 2013, Russian Federation granted political asylum to Edward Snowden. This episode worsened the US-Russian political relations further. In 2014, relations between the US and Russia deteriorated further. It is considered that Russian-US relations are at their worst state since the Cold war due to the situation in Ukraine. Another themes of confrontation between Russia and the United States are the situation in Syria and North Korea, missile defence, the position of non-profit organizations in Russia.

In order to answer the research question (whether the external factors, such as a political situation, have a greater influence on the development of the institution of academic exchange between the US and Russia), we decided to visualize it. The graph below combines everything written in the third chapter: institutional development line; changes and trends in institutional evolution, which were generated by the critical junctures in foreign policy.

It is clearly seen on the chart that changes in foreign policy correspond to changes occur in academic exchange. It is also necessary to pay attention to the matching direction of development. For example, we see a positive trend in political relations, and the same trend we see in institutional development. From 1993 to 2002, the political situation stabilized, while there is an upward trend in academic exchange. It is easily explained by the theory of path dependence. The trajectory of institutional evolution had been set (by the political situation), and the development of the institution continued to move in the same direction. That is, the trajectory of institutional development may be changed not simultaneously with the political situation. Political changes set a new direction; while institutional development may take this direction not immediately, continuing to move along the past trajectory. Nevertheless, institutional development changes its direction further. Then we look at what exactly have happened in Russian-American academic exchange in chosen critical junctures.

1) The first critical juncture in foreign policy is 1958. The first Agreement between the USSR and the USA on exchanges in science, technology, education, and culture was signed ("Lacy-Zarubin Agreement"). This critical juncture established the Academic Exchange Institution in Russia-US cooperation. It is an extremely important critical point. Because the currently existing stable and functioning institution of academic exchange between the two countries works owing this moment. On the chart of institutional development line in the point of 1958, we see that the evolution of the institution began rising. It happened at exactly the same year, proving the dependence on foreign policy processes.

2) The second critical juncture is 1962, the Cuban missile crisis. Relations between the two countries dropped to a critical level of confrontation. It is the strongest decline in political relations in history, as political tensions were on the brink of nuclear war. It pushed cultural and educational cooperation between the two countries even further into the background. All exchange agreements ceased to operate in exactly the same year. This case demonstrates a direct dependence from political processes.

3) The third critical juncture - is the beginning of 1970s. Tensions between the superpowers began to decline in 1970s. The US and USSR presidents proclaimed the beginning of new policy of "dйtente". On the chart of institutional development, the rise in this year is seen that proves the direct dependence on policy processes. Moreover, the improvement of political relations (critical juncture of 1970) generated the upward trend in the evolution of academic exchange institution. That is, this critical juncture predetermined the direction of institutional development, set it on a certain path. In 1973, R. Nixon and L. Brezhnev signed an agreement on exchanges in science, technology, education and culture; and a Declaration of Basic Principles of Mutual Relations. In 1973, the Fulbright program started in USSR. In the late 1970-s the USSR Academy of Sciences signed many academic exchange agreements with the US Scientific Institutions on physics, chemistry and biology.

4) The fourth critical juncture is 1980. The US imposed embargoes on technology and grain supplies to the Soviet Union and demanded to increase military expenditure. This period is known in history as political contradictions during "detente". It can be seen on the graph, that the number of exchange students decreased by approximately 300 persons (from 700 to 400). This number remained the same for more than five years.

5) The fifth critical juncture is 1985. M. Gorbachev became a General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee. It accelerated "dйtente" between the two states. The first meeting of Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev took place in Geneva (1985). During this meeting, they were able to meet personally and signed agreements on exchanges in science, culture and education. On the chart of institutional development, the rise after this year is seen. In addition, the critical juncture of 1985 generated an upward trend in the evolution of academic exchange institution.

6) The sixth critical juncture is 1991. On 25 December 1991, the Soviet Union was officially dissolved. G. H. W. Bush and M. Gorbachev declared that the Cold War is over. After the collapse of the USSR, foreign relations between the United States and Russia greatly improved and continued to develop. It is a very important critical point in Russian-US foreign relations. On the institutional development line, the rise in this year is also seen. This critical juncture (1991) fixed the upward trend of the institutional development path. This fixing was so significant that in spite of further stability in political relations, the development of the institution continued to move along the upward trajectory and in 2000 reached its peak (the highest point on the graph). After the peak point (2000), there was a stabilizing trend in the institutional evolution. The stabilizing trend could be explained not only by the stability of political relations, but also by the internal factor, which will be described in the next paragraph (3.3). The peak of development generated changes inside the institution itself.

7) The seventh critical juncture is 2003. In 2003, Russian administration opposed the US invasion of Iraq. Tension in relations arose, but not for long. On the graph of institutional development, it is seen that the total number of students decreased in 2003/2004 academic year. Then (after 2003), this critical juncture triggered a slight decline in institutional evolution. The decline is also caused by the internal factor, which we will discuss later.

8) The eighth critical juncture is 2007-2008 years. In 2007, the United States publicly announced their decision to establish a missile defence installation in Poland. Russian authorities considered it as a potential threat. In 2008, Russian-US relations were strained because of Russian invasion of Georgia. The number of exchange students decreased to 6763 persons in 2007/2008 academic year. The level of institutional development decreased also due to the internal factor.

9) The ninth critical juncture is 2012. After 2012, foreign policy positions of Russia and the United States are confrontational. It is a starting point of another political crisis in relations between Russia and the United States. It is considered that in 2014, Russian-US relations were at their worst state since the Cold war. Russian Federation closed the Future Leaders Exchange (FLEX) educational program. Academic exchanges were also affected by the U.S. actions, among them a $30 million funding cut for the Fulbright Program; and the closure of the Moscow office of the Kennan Institute, which fostered Russian-US academic exchanges. In 2013, the US Congress declared that it is going to stop funding of the "Title VIII Grant Program", which deals with Russian regional studies. On the chart of institutional development at the point 2012, there is also a decrease in the level of development. The critical juncture of 2012 affected the situation in academic exchange. Moreover, the downward trend of institutional development continues to the present day. The internal factor, which will be described further, also contributes to the consolidation of this trend.

3.3 Internal non-political factor that influence the development of the institution and its effect

The only internal factor we have identified is a stagnation in Russian-American academic exchange in terms of mutual training students, which emerged throughout the 2000s and is observed to date. In other words, an academic mobility on both sides is unequal. Students from Russia, who travel to the United States for educational purposes, several times more than students from the US who travel to study in Russia. It contradicts with the rules established in academic exchange, and indeed, slows down the development of the whole institution. During the Cold War there was no such problem, since both states strictly regulated a bilateral academic mobility. After the end of Cold War and the collapse of the USSR, a host of internal agreements signed between educational organizations on the basis of intergovernmental agreements emerged in academic exchange. The activities of these agreements are not regulated directly by the states; organizations themselves are responsible for this.

The trend of unequal academic mobility began to emerge in the 1990s; but at that time it was insignificant. In the early 2000s (during the peak of the development of academic exchange institution), this inequality has reached its critical point - Russian students in the US that year was almost 6 times more than American students in Russia. This has created contradictions within the institution itself. For example, from the Russian side, there is practically no selection among US candidates; while in the US, the requirements for candidates from Russia are very high. Also, some US educational organizations have expressed a desire to terminate the agreements, since such conditions for academic exchange become unfavourable for them.

In the third chapter we gave statistics of academic mobility on both sides over the years (Source: adapted from the US Institute of International Education). In this paragraph, we combine several tables into a single for better visibility, in order to demonstrate the unequal academic mobility.

Using this table, it is clearly seen by how much the number of Russian students in the US more than the number of American students in Russia.

After 2000 (the peak point), the level of institutional development has decreased slightly, and then stabilized. It is seen on the chart (see paragraph 3.2). It could be explained not only by the stability of political relations, but also by the internal factor - a stagnation in Russian-American academic exchange in terms of mutual training students. After 2004, the chart also shows a slight decrease in institutional development, which is explained by a combination of internal and external factors. The stabilizing trend (from 2007 to 2012) was at a lower level than the previous stabilizing trend (from 2001 to 2003). This is also due to two types of factors. From 2012, there is a declining trend of the level of institutional development. Mostly, this is due to political contradictions between the two countries; nevertheless, the internal factor also contributed to this decline.

Consequently, a detailed analysis shows that the internal factors such as a stagnation, also affect the evolution of academic exchange institution between the US and Russia.

Definitely, the two types of factors affect the development of academic exchange institution in Russian-American cooperation. Our research indicates that the external factor (foreign policy interaction) affects more. Moreover, we found only one internal factor. An important observation obtained in the course of research, that during the period of institutionalization (when the institution is being formed), external factors influence stronger than the internal ones. It can be seen on the graph, that there is a direct dependence on foreign policy processes. On the next stage of institutional development (when the institution is already operating), internal factors are added to the external ones.

It is important to note that internal factors (if they are negative) could and should be resolved inside the institution. If they are positive and contribute to the development of the institution, they only strengthen the institution as a whole. Internal factors cannot lead to significant transformation of the institution, but can speed up or slow down its development. The institution cannot resolve external problems by itself (or affect the external factors). Therefore, they are considered more significant. Here is an answer to the research question.

Our theoretical assumption proved to be true. External factors significantly affect an evolution and transformation of academic exchange institution between the US and Russia. Probably, it depends on a type of a particular institution. The academic exchange institution in US-Russian cooperation was established by a political decision, so the situation in foreign policy has a strong influence on it. It was demonstrated in our research.

3.4 Forecast of further evolution/devolution of the Academic Exchange Institution in Russia-US cooperation

Currently, a slowdown development of the academic exchange institution between Russia and the United States is observed, due to external (political contradictions) and internal (stagnation) factors. On the basis of this research, we decided to provide a forecast of further development of the institution. With regard to the external factor (foreign policy interaction), as soon as relations between countries will improve - politics will cease to hinder the development of the institution and, on the contrary, will accelerate it. This scenario was observed many times throughout a history of the institutional evolution; theory and practice illustrate it. Regarding to the internal factor, it is necessary to eliminate it by internal efforts. Probably, an additional formalization and strict adherence to the current regulations will be necessary. Thus, the institution can independently accelerate its own development.

A further pattern of development depends on the nature of future policy changes. Based on this, we propose two scenarios for the evolution of academic exchange institution:

1) If policy changes occur with a low (as it was before) or medium (as it is happening now) speed, we predict the cyclical development of the academic exchange institution. In this case, the current decline will be replaced by the growth; then it may decrease again, and so on in a cyclic model.

2) Political processes began to take place faster than it was in the past. If policy changes are taking place at high speed, it is most likely that the institution will not have time to follow them. Consequently, it will move along a predetermined path, and then will stabilize. In this case, we forecast a linear development.

Most likely, in the future, there will be a combination of the first and second scenarios. Regarding the internal factor, there could be stagnation within any institution. Since none of the parties is interested in its elimination, the current stagnation will simply lead to a partial change in the internal rules.

Conclusion

The current research analyzed an evolution, transformation and persistence of the Institution of Academic Exchange between the US and Russia. It is generally believed that unstable interaction between Russia and the United States on foreign policy issues affects the transformation of the Institution of international academic exchange established between the two countries. Most often it was mentioned during the period of Cold War; and it is often said at the present moment, because Russian-US relations since 2012 remain quite strained. With this research we proved that it is true. In addition, we demonstrated that the process is more complicated than it seems. Namely, we traced policy continuation and policy changes during the chosen period (1946-2015) and understood how it influences on the analyzed institution. We found that the evolution of academic exchange institution between the US and Russia takes place in a cyclic model, which includes a rise and fall against the background of changing foreign policy.