Suchergebnisse

The article analyses the aesthetic dimension of Chinese propaganda in Russia. The analysis seeks to identify the aesthetic component of Chinese propaganda in Russia as the fundamental, synthesising catalyst of Russian Sinophilia which unites several factors. The aesthetic aspect of Chinese propaganda in Russia is revealed through an analysis of official PRC websites in Russian, which clarifies a close connection between form and content in propaganda. The form quite often acquires a function which not only imparts the content, but also corrects it and uses it to manipulate and dominate. The analysis names as Russia's Achilles' heel its unbridled and unshakeable belief in its unique and inevitable Messianic mission in World History. This is its weak spot exploited by Chinese propaganda. The Russian reaction to Chinese propaganda is analysed, invoking the categories of both Sinophilia and Sinophobia. It is asserted that Chinese propaganda in Russia relies on the principles of involvement and participation, which are based on cultural exoticism and Confucian philosophy. To sum up, Chinese propaganda in Russia is identified as part of a plan/strategy for the establishment and maintenance of a grand, universal, practical, cosmopolitan Chinese philosophy or world order at the level of a global international system and world politics. Adapted from the source document.

The article offers an in-depth analysis of the Grand Strategy development throughout the course of history via evaluation of experience of states possessing Grand Strategies alongside estimation of the Grand Strategy demand and purpose problem that has risen in the 21st Century. Presumption is offered that significance and exigency of a national Grand Strategy has not diminished in the global world, whereas only spheres and conditions for its implementation have mutated. In the Grand Strategy of the 21st Century, a definition of the national "struggle for a spot under the Sun" is gradually replaced by the "networking" concept, the latter defining national effort to employ opportunities provided by globalization in order to pursue national development. Article observes that Western States are not naturally "condemned" to materialize the vision of growing prosperity, increasing quality of life and cohesion. Success of the Western Grand Strategy model development, the one based upon the liberal democracy concept, would depend not only on logic of globalization powers, but also on necessary decisions to be made by national governments. Adapted from the source document.

The article discuses the problem that was recently raised in the Lithuanian historical literature & public discourse by G. Beresnevieius, A. Bumblauskas, S. C. Rowell: was the medieval Lithuanian state (Grand Duchy of Lithuania; GDL) an empire? Important reason for the emergence of this problem was the partial rehabilitation of the very concept of "empire" due to the dissolution of the the USSR (reputed as "last empire") & the search for common legacies by the historians of the countries involved in the construction of the European Union as a transnational political community. There were important reasons for the traditional historiography to abstain from the use of the concepts of "empire" & "imperialism" in the work on GDL. For Non-Marxist Russian historians, GDL was simply another Russian state, so there could not be Russian imperialism against Russians. For Marxist historians, imperialism was a phase in the "capitalist formation," immediately preceding the socialist revolution & bound to the specific period of world history, so the research on precapitalist empires & imperialism was suspect of anachronism. For the opposite reason, deriving from the hermeneutic methodology, the talk about medieval Lithuanian empire & imperialism was an anachronism for Non-Marxist Polish & German historians too, because they considered as Empires only polities that claimed to be successors to Roman Empire: the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation, Byzantine Empire, Moscow Empire. Lithuanian political elite never raised such claims, although theory of the Lithuanian descent from Romans (Legend of Palemon) could be used for this goal. Starting from path-breaking work by S. N. Eisenstadt "The Political Systems of Empires" (1963), comparative politics, history, sociology, anthropology & theory of international relations witnessed the emergence of the field of interdisciplinary studies that can be described as comparative studies of empires & imperialism. Second section of the paper provides the survey of the theoretical work in this field in search of the ideas useful for the analysis of the peculiarities of the medieval Lithuanian state. This survey includes into its scope the work of S. N. Eisenstadt, I. Wallerstein, A. Motyl, B. Buzan, R. Little, A. Watson, M. Beissinger, Ch.Tilly & M. Doyle, whose book "Empires" is considered as the most important contribution to the theorizing of empires & imperialism up to this date. Adapted from the source document.

The main aim of the article is to reveal problem of decentralization of autonomy for local authorities & territorial administration in Lithuania. The reform of administrative division & autonomy for local authorities of the country runs slowly & complicated. Though society, scientists, various branches of government has a lot of various propositions & discussions have been taking place for more than 15 years, the important decisions cannot be made because of the lack of political willpower. One could be under impression that the reform will never be completed. The main reasons of such a disturbances are related to the absence of authentic traditions of autonomy for local authorities as well as to constant changes of centralized models of territorial administration. The unfinished re-form not only disturbs even development of the country but also complicates development of autonomy for local authorities system, which is one of the most important institutions of modern democracy. This also disturbs formation of regional self-consciousness, identity at regional & local level. Finally, it complicates the development of modern civil society in Lithuania. The history of Lithuania shows that even during 20th century models of territorial administration of the country have been changed several times, though centralized government prevailed & autonomy for local authorities was very limited. This prevented formation of territorial autonomy for local authorities & community traditions, solidarity among population was decreasing while indifference to the social needs was increasing. The Soviet period demolished the first appearances of territorial (regional) identity. This consequently caused the lack of willpower to implement new reform of territorial administration. The same as during the years of independence before World War II there is still uncertainty whether centralized or vast autonomy for local authorities should be chosen as a priority. Lithuanian government has always paid the main attention to the reform of regional governing system but autonomy for local authorities is almost totally forgotten. The absence of local & regional autonomy for local authorities makes Lithuania a unique rather unitary state, with a transformed soviet administrative division. Because of these reasons the problem of reformation & decentralization of territorial administration of Lithuania remains topical. Adapted from the source document.