Suchergebnisse

While the author is impressed by Cornwell's style and presentation, he is appaled by the lack of seriousness exhibited by the author who writes about an imprtant subject (not broached for the first time, by any means) and by demonstrated inability to supress his preconceived notions and even prejudices. Cornwell relies heavily on Owen Chadwick, which assures that he mentions most important facts about the involvement of the Cardinal and Pope Pius XII (whom Cornwell systematicaly entitles by his family name. Pacelli) in contemporary politics, but he bends and ignores Chadwick's research when he makes his judgment about the Pope. Cornwell's treatment of the Catholic Church in the Independent State of Croatia (he gives it an entrie chapter) is a traversy of research and objective writing. His main source. if not the only, for the presentation of the Church in Croatia during the World War II is the 35 years old book by Carlo Falconi. Cornwell perhaps did not know , but he could have and must have been informed, that Falconi wrote his piece on the basis of the propagandistic material given to him by the Yugos]av secrete service and propagandists, which served the purpose of anti-Chatolic propaganda in Yugoslavia. A well intended reader could excuse Cornwell (he does not read Croatian and could not know what some authors wrote about Falconi's sources at the time his book appeared), if he did not point those "Croatian materials" as essential not only for the condemnation of the Croatian Catholic episcopate, but for Pius XII as well. (SOI : CSP: S. 190)

"Hurtling between Weltschmerz and wit, drollness and diatribe, entropy and enchantment, it's the juxtaposition at the heart of Dubravka Ugresic's writings that saw Ruth Franklin dub her "the fantasy cultural studies professor you never had." In Europe in Sepia, Ugresic, ever the flâneur, wanders from the Midwest to Zuccotti Park, the Irish Aran Islands to Jerusalem's Mea Shearim, from the tristesse of Dutch housing estates to the riots of south London, charting everything from the listlessness of Central Europe to the ennui of the Low Countries. One finger on the pulse of an exhausted Europe, another in the wounds of postindustrial America, Ugresic trawls the fallout of political failure and the detritus of popular culture, mining each for revelation. Infused with compassion and melancholic doubt, Europe in Sepia centers on the disappearance of the future, the anxiety that no new utopian visions have emerged from the ruins of communism; that ours is a time of irreducible nostalgia, our surrender to pastism complete. Punctuated by the levity of Ugresic's raucous instinct for the absurd, despair has seldom been so beguiling"

The relations with Russia rank among the most important and most complex issues in the US and UK foreign policy. The years after the Second World War have been marked by an exhausting arms race between the Western and Eastern bloc that ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall, the break-up of the Soviet Union and the victory of the United States and its Western allies. The purpose of this paper is to analyse the relations between the US and the United Kingdom on the one hand, and Russia, on the other, during the mandate of President Trump and after Brexit and point to possible directions that these relations may take in the aftermath of Biden's victory in the 2020 US Presidential elections. The author proceeds from a hypothesis that the efforts of President Trump, who, contrary to his predecessors, felt that the relations with Russia should be based on interests rather than ideology, have failed. He has not been successful primarily due to the huge resistance mounted by the state structures, mainstream media and anti-Russian coalition forged by the Republican and Democratic parties. The relations between the UK and Russia remain cold after Brexit as well due to the severe problems between the two countries. The first part will deal with the strained relations between the United States and Russia following the West's victory in the Cold War, the efforts of President Trump to improve these relations and his failure to do so. The second part of the paper will address the relationship between the United Kingdom and Russia, which is in many respects even more complicated than that between Russia and the US. After Brexit, the relations between the two countries continue to be plagued by the activities of the Russian agents in Great Britain, the crisis in Ukraine and different views on the war in Syria. In the third part, the concluding part of the paper, the author tried to answer the question of how the relations between the US and Russia will develop after Joseph Biden won the 2020 US Presidential elections. According to him, the new President will continue to pursue the traditional policy towards Russia agreed upon by both US parties. It can be expected that Biden will, despite the policy of sanctions pursued by his predecessors, Obama and Trump, engage more in supporting the opposition and civilian sector in Russia. Given the cold and strained relations between these two states, it may be assumed that Great Britain will readily follow a new, tougher course of action pursued by President Biden towards Russia and Putin. It is especially important for UK politics that Biden returns to the ideas of liberalism because, as we have seen on previous pages, in London, in addition to the actions of Russian agents on the UK territory, Putin is most resented precisely for his activities to overthrow the ruling liberal order. Despite the good ties between Prime Minister Johnson and the former US President who supported Brexit, Biden's victory will bring relief to the UK because of his commitment, as opposed to Trump, to bring back America to the world political stage, where London is likely to expect to find space for its new global role after leaving the EU. On the other hand, Moscow will probably continue with its past foreign policy strategy in anticipation of the moves to be taken by the new US President without high expectations regarding the future relations between the two countries. Russia has even fewer expectations when it comes to relations with the UK, given the gravity of the problems that burden the relations between the two countries.

Početak dvadeset i prvog veka obeležio je najveći teroristički akt u istoriji čovečanstva, 11. septembar 2001. godine. Samoubilački napadi izvršeni tog dana na teritoriji Sjedinjenih Država su načinom na koji su izvedeni, svojom veličinom i posledicama, osigurali da početak novog milenijuma ostane upamćen u svetu po nagloj ekspanziji međunarodnog terorizma, koji je zbog neposrednih žrtava, materijalnih razaranja, i stalnog straha i nesigurnosti koje izaziva, gotovo sve šokirao i prestravio. Savremeni terorizam, dramatično oslikan kroz 11. septembar, danas predstavlja jedan od ključnih bezbednosnih problema i izazova globalizovanog društva, čiji sve češći, razorniji i smrtonosniji akti jasno ističu njegovu dominaciju nad drugim oblicima ugrožavanja bezbednosti. Ubrzo nakon 11. septembra, predsednik SAD Džordž V. Buš Mlađi objavio je sveopšti, prostorno i vremenski neograničen rat terorizmu, uz podršku većine zemalja u svetu kao i međunarodnih institucija, poput NATO i UN. Ovaj nekonvencionalni rat obuhvatio je mnoštvo vojnih, političkih i legislativnih akcija koje za glavni cilj imaju sprečavanje i suzbijanje terorizma na globalnom nivou. U tu svrhu donesene su posebne protivterorističke strategije kao i mnoštvo podstrategijskih dokumenata, kako u SAD, tako i u Evropskoj uniji kao i u njenim zemljama članicama. Američka nacionalna strategija za borbu protiv terorizma otklonila je propuste protivterorstičke prevencije i rezultirala podizanjem nivoa unutrašnje bezbednosti SAD. Glavni pokazatelj njene efikasnosti je činjenica da su Sjedinjene Države ostale pošteđene velikorazmernih terorističkih napada posle 11. septembra. To nije bio i slučaj sa Evropskom unijom, njihovim najvećim saveznikom, koju je u prvoj deceniji ovog rata Al Kaida prestravila sa dva velika napada (Madrid 2004. i London 2005. godine). Nažalost, EU je još uvek i meta i baza islamističkih ekstremista što predstavlja dokaz, a i najozbiljnije upozorenje, da je njena protivteroristička prevencija, za razliku od američke, u jednom ili više segmenata neadekvatna (propustljiva). ; The beginning of the twenty-first century was marked by the biggest terrorist act in the history of humanity, September 11, 2001. In the way that they were carried out, their size and consequences, suicide attacks committed on that day on the territory of the United States have ensured that the start of the new millennium will be remembered in the world by the rapid expansion of international terrorism, which has shocked and horrified almost everybody due to the direct victims, material damage, the fear and insecurity which evokes. Today, modern terrorism, dramatically portrayed through 9/11, represents one of the key security issues and challenges of a globalized society, whose frequent, more destructive and deadly acts clearly emphasize its domination over the other forms of endangering safety. Shortly after 9/11, the U.S. President George W. Bush Jr. announced an all-out, spatially and temporally unlimited war on terrorism, with the support of most countries in the world as well as international institutions, such as NATO and the UN. This unconventional warfare included a variety of military, political and legislative actions whose main objective is to prevent and combat terrorism on a global level. For this purpose, the special anti-terrorism strategies, and a number of other relevant strategic documents were adopted, both in the USA and in the European Union, as well as in its Member States. The U.S. National Strategy for Combating Terrorism has eliminated the glitches in American anti-terrorism prevention and resulted in raising the level of internal security of the United States. The main indicator of its effectiveness is the fact that the United States have been spared of large-scale terrorist attacks after the 9/11. This was not the case with the European Union, its biggest ally, which in the first decade of this war was terrified with two large attacks by Al Qaeda (Madrid 2004 and London 2005). Unfortunately, the EU is still the target and a base of Islamist extremists, which is an evidence and a most serious warning that its anti-terrorism prevention, unlike the U.S.'s, is in one or more segments inadequate (permeable).

Прихвативши понуду краља Александра Обреновића да образује владу Србије, Стојан Новаковић је, јула 1895. године, планирао да се посвети побољшању међународног положаја Србије и положаја српског народа у Старој Србији и Македонији. Рачунајући на помоћ Русије и на тешкоће које је Турска имала у решавањима јерменског и критског питања, Новаковић је настојао да од Порте изнуди просветне и верске привилегије за Србе у Старој Србији и Македонији. Немогућност бржег решавања финансијских и уставних питања, нестабилна политичка ситуација у Краљевини и аустроугарски утицаји довели су до пада Новаковићеве владе крајем 1896. године. Свака из угла својих интереса, Француска и Велика Британија пажљиво су пратиле и анализирале ситуацију у Србији и Новаковићев рад. ; Stojan Novaković's government (July 1895 – December 1896) faced numerous inherited problems. As a scholar, a diplomat and a politician, a man led by moral and scientific principles and national interests, Stojan Novaković was aware that he was taking reigns of a country which was not politically, economically nor militarily ready to make major stopes towards national liberation and unification. That is why he was resorting to negotiations in situation where he knew there would be no major achievements. He was resisting much more when he knew it made sense, and in situations in which he could not swallow national pride and ignore facts. British and, especially, French envoys to Belgrade knew that the reason for instability of Novaković's government was not in his undisputed political and intellectual capacities, but in international circumstances, internal political struggles, and in unpredictable characters of former King Milan and his son Aleksandar. Britain, who was protecting its interests from Russia in the Easter Mediterranean by supporting Austria-Hungary, and France who, in cooperation with Russia, tried to prevent major conflicts in the Balkans, did not take an active role in directing the policy of Kingdom of Serbia. London, with its sometimes harsh warnings, and Paris, with its advices, were managing to draw Belgrade's attention to the fact that, in spite of Armenian and Cretan question, and in spite of Albanian atrocities in Old Serbia and Macedonia, Serbia should not take any aggressive measures. ; Научни скупови / Српска академија наука и уметности ; књ. 172. Председништво ; књ. 11