Suchergebnisse

"Moscow's increasingly assertive behavior has given rise to intensive speculation as to
what the ultimate goals of Russia's foreign policy are. Basically, the question that needs
to be answered is: What does Russia want?
I would argue that it is impossible to understand the logic of Russia's international conduct without investigating the intimate and intricate link between the country's domestic
politics and its foreign policy. The intent thus is to place a special emphasis on studying
how the nature of Russia's socio-political system influences Moscow's policies in the
international arena.
I start off with postulating a thesis that, ultimately, the goal of Russian foreign policy
efforts is to create conditions for preserving and perpetuating the current political and
economic regime, while seeking to attain its legitimation by the international community. Specifically, this means that the Kremlin's three-pronged objective is: to secure the
persistence of a system of authoritarian rule and of bureaucratic capitalism; to have
this system recognized as valid in its own right—being equal (or even superior) to the
Western liberal model; and to integrate Russian economy into the global system while
shielding the domestic policies from the "pernicious" outside influences.
My second thesis is that it is precisely the nature of Russia's socio-political system that
makes Moscow's policies both towards the West and its ex-Soviet neighbors within the
common neighborhood inconsistent and contradictory. Since the specific characteristics
of Russia's regime make integration with Western/EU institutions all but impossible,
the Kremlin leadership proclaims Russia's strategic independence.
The intent to cast Russia as an independent pole inevitably compels the Kremlin leadership to focus on the country's immediate strategic neighborhood—what has famously been
called the sphere of Russia's "privileged interests"—where Russia seeks leadership and
closer integration. But paradoxically, the seeming affinity between the authoritarian regime
in Russia and those in most East European countries appears to be the main factor preventing successful integration. The thing is that authoritarian power simply cannot be delegated.
This explains why Russia ends up being faced with the seemingly intractable attraction-
assertion dilemma. Being unable to integrate its neighbors, Russia seeks to aggressively
assert itself and its interests. But Moscow's increasingly muscular policies seem to contradict Russia's stated intention to attract allies and cast itself as an appealing socio-economic model to be emulated by the like-minded partners." [author's abstract]

The article analyzes the political and socioeconomic situation in the Central Caucasus. It reveals the common and particular features of the regional conflicts, the only universal principle for the settlement of which is not to permit a forceful change in the interstate borders generally recognized and confirmed by international documents. It looks, first, at the correlation between regional and interstate political stability and economic development and, second, at interstate dependence between political democracy and economic progress. It shows that in the interrelationship between regional economic development, on the one hand, and settlement of political conflicts, on the other, it is the second that comes first and so should be viewed as the absolute priority.

In the last decade, energy markets have developed substantially due to the growing activity of financial investors. One consequence of this massive presence of investors is a stronger link between the hitherto segmented energy and financial markets. This book addresses some of the recent developments in the interrelationship between financial and energy markets. It aims to further the understanding of the rich interplay between financial and energy markets by presenting several empirical studies that illustrate and discuss some of the main issues on this agenda.

The problem of the interrelationship between the political and military elite is very complex, multidimensional, multi-hierarchical and relatively protected from the scientific and professional public and, as such, more difficult to understand. It is particularly relevant in war, where ties are looser and where the self-initiative of individuals and social groups comes to full expression, which is precisely the subject of this analysis. However, the subject is not considered in its totality, but is limited only to the territory of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) in the period from the 1980s onwards. The events out of that time were used as an empirical basis for illustrating and arguing one's own views. The subject of this paper is structured in five separate parts. In the first part, the epistemological and logic bases of the relationship between politics and the military in war are presented, with the focus on the noticed weaknesses in the theoretical and normative sphere and their consequences for real practice. In the second part, a comparative analysis of the goals of politics and the military has been done, with an emphasis on the necessary need for them to coincide at the state level and be conducted by joint efforts. The third part explains the relationship between the military and politics at the most general level. It has been proven that politics is more general and that it directs the entire activities of the society including the deployment of the military in war. The fourth part presents the models of the relationship between the military and politics at strategic level. It has been unequivocally proven that politics is superior to the military, which does not exclude the possibility of intensive negotiations before making definite decisions on the deployment in combat operations. Finally, the fifth part explains the relationship between local government representatives and units at tactical level. The links between management and cooperation between these entities with the focus on communication difficulties and consequences are explained.

The paper begins with a broad overview of shadow prices emphasizing their close relationship with the policy environment. This is followed by the description of an analytical framework which integrates shadow prices and policies. The analytical framework is then used to highlight some of the major project evaluation shadow pricing rules. The interrelationship between project investment and public policy reforms emerges from this discussion. The paper ends with a description of some major research issues that need to be considered in assessing public choice between project investment and policy reforms. This agenda for research will help in determining whether the approach described in the paper can be operationalized in terms of quantification and measurement. While the main thrust of the paper is on the analytical aspects, a brief review of actual practice provides the interface with the analytics in indicating the research agenda.

The paper begins with a broad overview of shadow prices emphasizing their close relationship with the policy environment. This is followed by the description of an analytical framework which integrates shadow prices and policies. The analytical framework is then used to highlight some of the major project evaluation shadow pricing rules. The interrelationship between project investment and public policy reforms emerges from this discussion. The paper ends with a description of some major research issues that need to be considered in assessing public choice between project investment and policy reforms. This agenda for research will help in determining whether the approach described in the paper can be operationalized in terms of quantification and measurement. While the main thrust of the paper is on the analytical aspects, a brief review of actual practice provides the interface with the analytics in indicating the research agenda.