Suchergebnisse

The Russian Federation, by a municipal law act dated March 21, 2014, annexed Crimea, an area of Ukraine. This act followed armed intervention by forces of the Russian Federation, a referendum, and a declaration of independence in Crimea. Outside the context of decolonization, few claims of annexation following the use of force have been made during the United Nations era; this is the first by a permanent member of the Security Council against a United Nations member. The present article examines the annexation of Crimea in view of the legal arguments that the Russian Federation has articulated in defense of its actions. It then considers the international response and the possible consequences of nonrecognition.

In the wake of Russia's annexation of the Crimean Autonomous Republic, some scholars and analysts of international relations rushed to proclaim the inauguration of the new world order. In this paper, I argue that such claims are mistaken and groundless. Further, Russia's actions in the peninsula do not represent a stratagem of geopolitical expansion and pose no implications for the global balance of power. Of course, Russia's annexation of Crimea was in severe violation of international law. Nevertheless, only careful and informed analysis of the political coup that ousted the government of Yanukovych and familiarity with Crimea's history can illuminate one's understanding of the causes of the territory's decision to secede from Ukraine's authority and reunite with Russia.

The article carries out an assessment of the "reunification of Crimea with Russia" from the point of view of contemporary international law and examines the arguments of Russian scholars who aim to justify the acts of Russia in Crimea. The article aims to identify the strategies that are employed in seeking to offer an interpretation of international legal norms that corresponds to the interests of the Russian Federation. The research shows that in the legal discourse a new definition is attached to a "people" as an entity entitled to secession and right to "remedial secession" becomes, in principle, absolute, i.e. the exercise of the right to "remedial secession" is justified not only on the grounds of an actual physical threat, but also on the grounds of vague ideological threats, or temporary political instability. Moreover, the scientific discourse on justifying the "reunification of Crimea with Russia" relies heavily on historical arguments that suggest restoring "historical justice" and reuniting historically united nations, and aims at diminishing the sovereignty of Ukraine and redefining it in such a way that enhances the scope of Russian sovereignty, while minimizing the sovereignty of post-Soviet states. The research suggests that consequently the current Russian legal discourse has become a political instrument used for constructing concepts and meanings necessary for the realization of Russia's geopolitical interests as Russian scholars tend to manipulate international legal concepts and combine legal and pseudo-legal reasoning and subsequently an alternative pseudo-legal reality is constructed.

The article carries out an assessment of the "reunification of Crimea with Russia" from the point of view of contemporary international law and examines the arguments of Russian scholars who aim to justify the acts of Russia in Crimea. The article aims to identify the strategies that are employed in seeking to offer an interpretation of international legal norms that corresponds to the interests of the Russian Federation. The research shows that in the legal discourse a new definition is attached to a "people" as an entity entitled to secession and right to "remedial secession" becomes, in principle, absolute, i.e. the exercise of the right to "remedial secession" is justified not only on the grounds of an actual physical threat, but also on the grounds of vague ideological threats, or temporary political instability. Moreover, the scientific discourse on justifying the "reunification of Crimea with Russia" relies heavily on historical arguments that suggest restoring "historical justice" and reuniting historically united nations, and aims at diminishing the sovereignty of Ukraine and redefining it in such a way that enhances the scope of Russian sovereignty, while minimizing the sovereignty of post-Soviet states. The research suggests that consequently the current Russian legal discourse has become a political instrument used for constructing concepts and meanings necessary for the realization of Russia's geopolitical interests as Russian scholars tend to manipulate international legal concepts and combine legal and pseudo-legal reasoning and subsequently an alternative pseudo-legal reality is constructed ; Vilniaus universitetas

Abstract
The article aims to provide an insight into academic and military studies that investigate security challenges in the Baltic region after the annexation of Crimea. To do this in a systematic way, numerous academic and military studies and analyses in this field are divided into six broad categories: literature on conventional threat scenarios in the Baltic region; studies on nuclear escalation scenarios; publications that describe Russian viewpoints in the current confrontation with the West; studies that discuss security policy and security perceptions of the Baltic countries and the national security models of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania; studies on anti-access and area denial; and articles that analyse the dilemmas and challenges in association with understanding the essence of deterrence in the context of modern hybrid warfare and the build-up of a viable deterrence model in the Baltic region. In total, about 40 publications from the period between 2014 and 2019 are represented in this article. While some studies are already well known, others have undeservedly remained somewhat overlooked. This article attempts to correct this by highlighting and comparing the results of the most interesting and intriguing studies in this field. Through this, the author strived to maintain a balance between studies conducted both by military experts and by academics.

Following Russia's aggression towards Ukraine and the occupation of Crimea, there are few who would doubt Moscow's endeavours to influence the balance of power in the pan-Baltic region as well. As often as not, such endeavours tend to be analysed after they occur. Russia's potential to exercise this kind of influence using the Kaliningrad factor was recalled as if apropos of nothing. This is cause to suspect that academic research has so far failed to properly consider Kaliningrad as a geostrategic factor. Then there are the questions: What is the course of the transformation of the geopolitical status of the Russian Federation's Kaliningrad (Konigsberg) region? What is the role that Moscow has earmarked for the exclave within the European security architecture? And is it a merely regional role? One way to find out the answers is by verifying the governance model applied by the parent country to the oblast, which is convincingly grounded on the concept of a geopolitical hostage [.]

Following Russia's aggression towards Ukraine and the occupation of Crimea, there are few who would doubt Moscow's endeavours to influence the balance of power in the pan-Baltic region as well. As often as not, such endeavours tend to be analysed after they occur. Russia's potential to exercise this kind of influence using the Kaliningrad factor was recalled as if apropos of nothing. This is cause to suspect that academic research has so far failed to properly consider Kaliningrad as a geostrategic factor. Then there are the questions: What is the course of the transformation of the geopolitical status of the Russian Federation's Kaliningrad (Konigsberg) region? What is the role that Moscow has earmarked for the exclave within the European security architecture? And is it a merely regional role? One way to find out the answers is by verifying the governance model applied by the parent country to the oblast, which is convincingly grounded on the concept of a geopolitical hostage [.]

Following Russia's aggression towards Ukraine and the occupation of Crimea, there are few who would doubt Moscow's endeavours to influence the balance of power in the pan-Baltic region as well. As often as not, such endeavours tend to be analysed after they occur. Russia's potential to exercise this kind of influence using the Kaliningrad factor was recalled as if apropos of nothing. This is cause to suspect that academic research has so far failed to properly consider Kaliningrad as a geostrategic factor. Then there are the questions: What is the course of the transformation of the geopolitical status of the Russian Federation's Kaliningrad (Konigsberg) region? What is the role that Moscow has earmarked for the exclave within the European security architecture? And is it a merely regional role? One way to find out the answers is by verifying the governance model applied by the parent country to the oblast, which is convincingly grounded on the concept of a geopolitical hostage [.]

One of the distinctive features of Russia's confrontation with the West over the 2014-2016 period is the intensification of Russian propaganda both in foreign countries and within the state. Lithuania, whose relations with a major neighbour were not normalized, and which openly supported Ukraine's position, attracted the additional attention of Russian mass media in which an incitement to anti- Lithuanian moods was bolstered. In this case, it is endeavoured to generally describe how the mass media (television and newspapers) played a role in contriving a social construct and ascertain the Lithuanian quantitative characteristics which are presented in Russian mass media. Referring to the analysis, one can distinguish three prevailing negative images of Lithuania - that is, Russophobic and anti-Russian; a falsifier of history; and a failing and non-influential state. These images, being consistently and purposefully exploited in Russian information space, almost with no alternative sources, turned into undeniable truth for the majority of Russian citizens. This provides the Kremlin with vast possibilities of manipulation in constructing the tactics and strategy of geopolitical instability. On the other hand, one should not forget that such a negative picture of Lithuania serves as a way in which Russian society justifies Putin's political system and demonstrates its superiority over the values of the Western world.

One of the distinctive features of Russia's confrontation with the West over the 2014-2016 period is the intensification of Russian propaganda both in foreign countries and within the state. Lithuania, whose relations with a major neighbour were not normalized, and which openly supported Ukraine's position, attracted the additional attention of Russian mass media in which an incitement to anti- Lithuanian moods was bolstered. In this case, it is endeavoured to generally describe how the mass media (television and newspapers) played a role in contriving a social construct and ascertain the Lithuanian quantitative characteristics which are presented in Russian mass media. Referring to the analysis, one can distinguish three prevailing negative images of Lithuania - that is, Russophobic and anti-Russian; a falsifier of history; and a failing and non-influential state. These images, being consistently and purposefully exploited in Russian information space, almost with no alternative sources, turned into undeniable truth for the majority of Russian citizens. This provides the Kremlin with vast possibilities of manipulation in constructing the tactics and strategy of geopolitical instability. On the other hand, one should not forget that such a negative picture of Lithuania serves as a way in which Russian society justifies Putin's political system and demonstrates its superiority over the values of the Western world.

One of the distinctive features of Russia's confrontation with the West over the 2014-2016 period is the intensification of Russian propaganda both in foreign countries and within the state. Lithuania, whose relations with a major neighbour were not normalized, and which openly supported Ukraine's position, attracted the additional attention of Russian mass media in which an incitement to anti- Lithuanian moods was bolstered. In this case, it is endeavoured to generally describe how the mass media (television and newspapers) played a role in contriving a social construct and ascertain the Lithuanian quantitative characteristics which are presented in Russian mass media. Referring to the analysis, one can distinguish three prevailing negative images of Lithuania - that is, Russophobic and anti-Russian; a falsifier of history; and a failing and non-influential state. These images, being consistently and purposefully exploited in Russian information space, almost with no alternative sources, turned into undeniable truth for the majority of Russian citizens. This provides the Kremlin with vast possibilities of manipulation in constructing the tactics and strategy of geopolitical instability. On the other hand, one should not forget that such a negative picture of Lithuania serves as a way in which Russian society justifies Putin's political system and demonstrates its superiority over the values of the Western world.

One of the distinctive features of Russia's confrontation with the West over the 2014-2016 period is the intensification of Russian propaganda both in foreign countries and within the state. Lithuania, whose relations with a major neighbour were not normalized, and which openly supported Ukraine's position, attracted the additional attention of Russian mass media in which an incitement to anti- Lithuanian moods was bolstered. In this case, it is endeavoured to generally describe how the mass media (television and newspapers) played a role in contriving a social construct and ascertain the Lithuanian quantitative characteristics which are presented in Russian mass media. Referring to the analysis, one can distinguish three prevailing negative images of Lithuania - that is, Russophobic and anti-Russian; a falsifier of history; and a failing and non-influential state. These images, being consistently and purposefully exploited in Russian information space, almost with no alternative sources, turned into undeniable truth for the majority of Russian citizens. This provides the Kremlin with vast possibilities of manipulation in constructing the tactics and strategy of geopolitical instability. On the other hand, one should not forget that such a negative picture of Lithuania serves as a way in which Russian society justifies Putin's political system and demonstrates its superiority over the values of the Western world.