Suchergebnisse

In ɑn erɑ where knowledge is diffusing ɑt ɑ relɑtively rɑpid rɑte, the nɑture ɑnd ex- tent of the relɑtionships enjoyed by ɑ country's militɑry forces with their counterpɑrts ɑbroɑd cɑn become ɑn importɑnt ingredient thɑt enɑbles more effective conversion of nɑtionɑl resources into usɑble militɑry power. Militɑry-to-militɑry relɑtions come in vɑrious forms. At the simplest level, the presence of defense ɑttɑchés in embɑssies ɑbroɑd, functions ɑs one conduit for monitoring new developments in technology, force structure, ɑnd orgɑnizɑtion. Pɑrticipɑting in militɑry educɑtion progrɑms ɑbroɑd ɑnd observing vɑrious foreign militɑry exercises represents ɑn interɑction ɑt ɑ deeper, more significɑnt level, especiɑlly if such pɑrticipɑtion is fɑirly continuous, is diverse with respect to the kind of instruction offered, ɑnd involves individuɑls who eventuɑlly return to postings in force trɑining ɑnd combɑt development estɑblishments bɑck home. ɑt the most sophisticɑted level, militɑry-to-militɑry relɑtions tɑke the form of combined exercises, com- bined trɑining progrɑms, ɑnd combined deployments for militɑry missions.

AbstractThis article examines an understudied topic: after imperial political sovereignty has ended, how does the empire's infrastructural power physically disintegrate along national lines. By tracing the breakup of the Soviet military establishment from 1992 to 1993, this article shows that physical dissolution is a multifaceted process that cannot be equated with political termination of an empire. Drawing on the Russian military newspaper Krasnaya Zvezda over 1992 and 1993, I identify three ways by which successor states exited the Soviet military system: (1) quitting, withdrawing from the Soviet military and establishing a national military from scratch; (2) partitioning, seizing the Soviet military's manpower and assets to establish a national military; (3) staying, maintaining a unified federative military opposed to the idea of developing national militaries. The tracing of these three paths shows that this trifurcation stemmed from the complicated combination of four factors of successor states: the existing capacity to maintain a national military, the security situation at the moment of independence, the expected availability of foreign aids, and the professional backgrounds of nationalist elites. This article concludes that physical disintegration is a process largely distinct from the political termination of empire, and therefore, ought to be carved out as a research area of empire study.

<i>From the geopolitical point of view, the Kaliningrad Oblast, due to its exclave location, has
become an area of strategic importance. Its strategic nature has been steadily increasing
with the successive enlargements of the European Union and NATO. The geographical
location and the army stationed in the area allow Moscow to control the situation in
the Baltic Sea basin. This makes it possible, through the Euro-Atlantic location of most
countries in the region, to influence European policies. In this way, Russia is playing
a leading role in this part of the continent. From the point of view of the countries within the
region, it is a global military power and a regional superpower. In this context, Kaliningrad
exclave increasingly more frequently serves as a security policy tool. It is part of the ongoing
threat to the Baltic States and Poland. Demilitarisation of the region, which is periodically
demanded by neighbouring countries, is impossible for several reasons. The armed forces
stationed there are a counterbalance to the expanding North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
from Russia's point of view. They serve to protect national interests and secure the affairs
of the Russian and Russian-speaking diasporas in the immediate vicinity. They protect the
Russian economic zone and access to the resources of the Baltic Sea. Moreover, the military
potential located in the Kaliningrad Oblast, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, has been
a guarantee of continuity of Potsdam's border solutions.</i>