Suchergebnisse

The paper provides reflections on NATO's London Summit held on 3 and 4 December 2019 in the context of Poland's military security. The paper is divided into an introduction, six sections, and a conclusion. The first section is devoted to issues of formation, functioning, and disintegration of alliances from the perspective of the theory of defensive structural realism and explains the methodological assumptions of the paper. The second section presents the atmosphere as prevailed before and during the Summit, which significantly impacted its process. The following sections are devoted to the main problems raised during the Summit from the perspective of Poland's military security. The first involved the approval of Poland and the Baltic states' defense plans together with a discussion on the danger of their blocking by the Turkish delegation. Another issue was the symbolic and practical confirmation of Article 5 of the Washington Treaty's significance in the perspective of the approach to Russia's threat. The next two problems concerned the level of Member States' defense spending and the vision of strengthening the EU's defense potential. The paper's main thesis is that the decisions of the NATO Summit in London have had a positive impact on Poland's military security. However, the climate and discussions that accompanied the Summit also brought a great deal of uncertainty and revealed a growing gap between allies concerning various issues.

Following the 2004 expansion of the European Union (EU), Polish migrant workers began arriving in the United Kingdom on an unprecedented scale. Londoners (Londyńczycy, 2008-9) was a response to this. Exploring the lives of Polish migrants in London, the series became an instant success on Polish television, regularly attracting around four million viewers. This article explores how Londoners represents Britishness and Polishness to its target Polish audience. It will argue that the series negotiates questions of Polish national identity, which over the past 20 years has been undergoing fundamental redefinition as a result of the ending of the Cold War and Poland's accession to the EU. ; 'Great Britain, Great Expectations': The Representation of Polish Migration to Great Britain in Londyńczycy/LondonersFollowing the 2004 expansion of the European Union (EU), Polish migrant workers began arriving in the United Kingdom on an unprecedented scale. Londoners (Londyńczycy, 2008-9) was a response to this. Exploring the lives of Polish migrants in London, the series became an instant success on Polish television, regularly attracting around four million viewers. This article explores how Londoners represents Britishness and Polishness to its target Polish audience. It will argue that the series negotiates questions of Polish national identity, which over the past 20 years has been undergoing fundamental redefinition as a result of the ending of the Cold War and Poland's accession to the EU.

Lausanne Peace Treaty did not solve contradictions between Great Britain and Turkey. Political relations between those two countries remained strained. The Kemalists could not forget that London had been the main supporter of Greece during the Liberation War (Kurtuluş Savaşı). On the other hand, the British thought Turkey to be a seasonal state and were alarmed when Kemalists had established a close link with the Soviet Russia. However, the most serious problem was a dispute over the possession of the vilayet of Mosul. The territory of Mosul was held by Turkey until the First World War. In 1918 it was occupied by Britain. In 1920 it was assigned to Iraq, which had become a British mandate. However Kemalists refused to relinquish their claims to the territory of Mosul, which was specified in the National Pact (Misakı Millı) as Turkish one. For that reason the question of Mosul remained in a state of deadlock, even after the Lausanne Treaty had been signed. Bilateral negotiations between Great Britain and Turkey did not solve the problem, and the matter was referred to the League of Nations. In December 1925 the Council of the League of Nations decided that the vilayet of Mosul was an integraf part of Iraq. Finally the dispute over that territory ended in June 1926, when the border treaty between Iraq and Turkey was signed. However the case of Mosul cast a shadow over relations between Angora and London at least until 1929.

Lausanne Peace Treaty did not solve contradictions between Great Britain and Turkey. Political relations between those two countries remained strained. The Kemalists could not forget that London had been the main supporter of Greece during the Liberation War (Kurtuluş Savaşı). On the other hand, the British thought Turkey to be a seasonal state and were alarmed when Kemalists had established a close link with the Soviet Russia. However, the most serious problem was a dispute over the possession of the vilayet of Mosul. The territory of Mosul was held by Turkey until the First World War. In 1918 it was occupied by Britain. In 1920 it was assigned to Iraq, which had become a British mandate. However Kemalists refused to relinquish their claims to the territory of Mosul, which was specified in the National Pact (Misakı Millı) as Turkish one. For that reason the question of Mosul remained in a state of deadlock, even after the Lausanne Treaty had been signed. Bilateral negotiations between Great Britain and Turkey did not solve the problem, and the matter was referred to the League of Nations. In December 1925 the Council of the League of Nations decided that the vilayet of Mosul was an integraf part of Iraq. Finally the dispute over that territory ended in June 1926, when the border treaty between Iraq and Turkey was signed. However the case of Mosul cast a shadow over relations between Angora and London at least until 1929.

Following the defeat of the revolutions in France, Germany, Italy, Poland and Hungary in 1848 and 1849, many participants of the liberal movements had to flee to escape retaliation. In Europe, Britain was the only safe haven for the refugees: in London perhaps the most interesting group of idealists of many nationalities convened − with the major link between them being their unsuccessful clash with the forces of monarchy in their homelands and their grandiose plans for re-starting the freedom fights. For Marx, Kinkel, Hecker, Kossuth, Mazzini, Ruge London, as one of them put it, offered little bread, but did provide the necessary freedom of speech and that of press. Many deemed it crucial that they succeed in the mobilization of the United States in support of their struggles. In order to mobilize the American public, and, of course, to collect donations for their cause, these (ex-)leaders of the revolutions traveled to the United States sometime in the 1850s and organized extensive lecturing and fundraising tours: Gottfried Kinkel (September 1851 to March 1852), Amand Goegg (December 1851 to July 1852), Kossuth (December 1851 to July 1852), Alberto and Jessie White Mario (October 1858). This paper aims to analyze the historical significance of the lecturing tours by seeking answers to the following questions: 1.) Why did the revolutionary spokespersons unanimously turn to America for inspiration? 2.) What practical benefits did the individual fundraisers hope to gain from their trips? What specific target audiences did they choose for their campaign, and why? 3.) What was the reaction of the American public? 4.) What was the relationship between the travelling revolutionaries themselves? 5.) How can the results of the tours be evaluated from the perspective of the a) individuals b) the ethnic group/political issues they represented c) American general public/political groups?3,99zł

Państwa Unii Europejskiej, po ogłoszeniu przez Wielką Brytanię decyzji o opuszczeniu Wspólnoty, muszą ponownie zredefiniować swoje podejście do polityki obronnej i kluczowej w tym zakresie Wspólnej Polityki Bezpieczeństwa i Obrony. Inicjatywy podjęte w ostatnim czasie w obszarze uwiarygodniania UE na arenie międzynarodowej, wskazują na determinację pozostałych państw członkowskich, by budować politykę obronną w oparciu o projekty, które przez lata nie miały szansy na urzeczywistnienie, właśnie z powodu sprzeciwu Londynu. ; The countries of the European Union, after the announcement by the UK of its decision to leave the Community, must redefine their approach to defence policy special in frame of Common Security and Defence Policy. Recent initiatives in the area of making the EU credible on the international stage show the determination of other Member States to build their defence policies on the basis of projects that for years have had no chance of becoming a reality, precisely because of the opposition of London.

Państwa Unii Europejskiej, po ogłoszeniu przez Wielką Brytanię decyzji o opuszczeniu Wspólnoty, muszą ponownie zredefiniować swoje podejście do polityki obronnej i kluczowej w tym zakresie Wspólnej Polityki Bezpieczeństwa i Obrony. Inicjatywy podjęte w ostatnim czasie w obszarze uwiarygodniania UE na arenie międzynarodowej, wskazują na determinację pozostałych państw członkowskich, by budować politykę obronną w oparciu o projekty, które przez lata nie miały szansy na urzeczywistnienie, właśnie z powodu sprzeciwu Londynu. ; The countries of the European Union, after the announcement by the UK of its decision to leave the Community, must redefine their approach to defence policy special in frame of Common Security and Defence Policy. Recent initiatives in the area of making the EU credible on the international stage show the determination of other Member States to build their defence policies on the basis of projects that for years have had no chance of becoming a reality, precisely because of the opposition of London.