Search results

In this article we highlight the role of Kaliningrad in Russia, the relationship between Lithuania, Kaliningrad, & Russia in the EU & NATO enlargement processes, & finally, Russian policy towards the EU & NATO enlargement to the Baltic. The article concludes that Kaliningrad today, more than in the previous decade, can be seen as an inclusive region under federal control in the economic area. Militarily, Russia has yet to formulate a clear policy for Kaliningrad. Future Russian policy in general & the policy on Kaliningrad in particular will for the most part depend on the development of the EU (on military cooperation & on enlargement) & on the dialogue between Russia & NATO (on enlargement, on combating terrorism & other issues). Until today the relationship between Lithuania & Russia has mainly been influenced by their common Soviet history, but will in the future to a larger extent be influenced by Lithuania's increasing cooperation with the EU & NATO. 26 References. Adapted from the source document.

Since the start of the Ukrainian crisis in 2014, the Nordic states have sought to advance their defence cooperation "beyond peacetime" to also encompass operational military cooperation in crisis and armed conflict. Relations between the two Nordic non-NATO members, Sweden and Finland, have formed a vanguard, encompassing bilateral operational planning beyond peacetime. While no formal security policy guarantees have been exchanged, Sweden and Finland have created strong expectations that they will lend each other support in a crisis. In short, while no formal alliance treaty exists, the two states have nevertheless become closely aligned. In 2020, Sweden and Finland joined NATO member Norway in signalling their intention to strengthen their trilateral defence relationship. The following year, NATO members Norway and Denmark signed a similar agreement with Sweden. The goal of these documents was to coordinate their national operational plans – their "war plans" – and perhaps develop some common operational plans. In this article, it is argued that these agreements fall short of a formal military alliance, but that they represent an alignment policy between the Nordic states.

This article examines whether the thesis of classical realism that political states are primarily motivated by the desire for military and economic power applies to the British Empire (1815-1914). The article questions to what extent the emergence of the British Empire (1815-1914) was driven by Britain's foreign policy to alter existing power structures in international relations. The article offers an overview of pre-imperial, imperial, and post-imperial strategies within the theory classical realism, and then applies these strategies to analyze the pre-imperial (1600-1815), imperial (1815-1914) period of the British Empire. A discussion of the post-imperial period focuses on Britain's maintenance of status quo and its alliance with the U.S. The article concludes that the theory of classical realism in international relations is useful to the discussion of the emergence, use, and maintenance of political power of the British Empire (1814-1915). This article is one in a series of articles on the topic of empires. References. E. Sundby

Norway's security & defence policy was justified with reference to Cold War arguments well into the 1990s. The Norwegian NATO discourse, which is the topic of the article, is still focused on territorial defence, with allied support in an emergency situation, interoperability & alliance loyalty at its core. NATO increasingly is considered as a political instrument in which Norwegian force contributions to international operations are converted into political influence vis-a-vis Norway's allies. Some fear, however, that international engagement will reduce the national defence capacity, leaving Norway in a vulnerable situation with Russia in the northern areas. This view also reflects the opposition against defence reform, where NATO has been a central external driving force. NATO is still seen as the main arena for transatlantic relations in the Norwegian debate, whereas little attention is being paid to the ever more ambitious & capable EU. More striking, maybe, is that the attitude towards Norway's close relationship with the US, even after its unilateral turn since nine-eleven, does not seem to have changed. 64 References. Adapted from the source document.