Suchergebnisse

One of the most important diplomatic debates of the 1990s evolved around the eastern enlargement of the NATO. In the early years of the foreign policy of the Middle-Eastern countries by now free from soviet influence one major issue was to adapt themselves to the post-cold war world order. All of the countries involved – the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary in the first round – soon realized that their only option was to get integrated into the western organizations, to NATO in particular. The leading politicians of this organization had their doubts about these countries' capability to adapt to the already developed system of the organization. This is mainly illustrated by the fact that until the middle of the decade there was a lack of real commitment to the enlargement of the alliance. The PfP document of January 1994 may be regarded as a breakthrough. The diplomacy of Moscow became more and more dismissive as to the idea of the eastern enlargement of the NATO. Within a few months an attitude that regarded Russia joining the NATO as a possible perspective gave way to the total rejection of the enlargement. This study aims at exploring the determining points of this debate mainly in the light of the most important documents. ; One of the most important diplomatic debates of the 1990s evolved around the eastern enlargement of the NATO. In the early years of the foreign policy of the Middle-Eastern countries by now free from soviet influence one major issue was to adapt themselves to the post-cold war world order. All of the countries involved – the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary in the first round – soon realized that their only option was to get integrated into the western organizations, to NATO in particular. The leading politicians of this organization had their doubts about these countries' capability to adapt to the already developed system of the organization. This is mainly illustrated by the fact that until the middle of the decade there was a lack of real commitment to the enlargement of the alliance. The PfP document of January 1994 may be regarded as a breakthrough. The diplomacy of Moscow became more and more dismissive as to the idea of the eastern enlargement of the NATO. Within a few months an attitude that regarded Russia joining the NATO as a possible perspective gave way to the total rejection of the enlargement. This study aims at exploring the determining points of this debate mainly in the light of the most important documents.

This article reviews the reasons behind Russia-Ukraine dispute and conducts comparative analysis of this conflict in the context of worldwide geopolitical processes. Ukrainian crisis undermined system of international relations. After the conflict started, the interests of world centers became obvious. This conflict is unfolding in the prism of the US strategy retaining its global dominance and as a result, changing techno-political structure of the world economics. This article also analyzes consequences and challenges of this conflict for the Republic of Armenia and the necessity of diversifying the foreign policy in the new regional reality. ; Հոդվածում դիտարկվում է ռուս-ուկրաինական հակասությունների առաջացման պատճառները և այն լուսաբանվում է համաշխարհային աշխարհաքաղաքական գործընթացների համատեքստում: Ուկրաինական ճգնաժամը սասանեց միջազգային հարաբերությունների համակարգը: Բացահայտվում է ռուս-ուկրաինական հակամարտության խորացման գործընթացում համաշխարհային կենտրոնների շահագրգռվածությունը: Այդ հակամարտությունը ներկայացված է գլոբալ գերիշխանությունը պահպանելու ամերիկյան ռազմավարության և համաշխարհային տնտեսության տեխնոլոգիական մի տնտեսաձևից որակական նոր կացութաձևի անցման համատեքստում: Հայաստանի Հանրապետության առջև ծառացած մարտահրավերների տեսանկյունից լուսաբանվում են այդ հակամարտության հետևանքները, ինչպես նաև հիմնավորվում է ձևավորված տարածաշրջանային նոր իրականության պայմաններում արտաքին քաղաքականության դիվերսիֆիկացիայի անհրաժեշտությունը: ; В статье рассматриваются причины возникновения российско-украниского противоречия и делается сравнительный анализ этого конфликта в контексте мировых геополитических процессов. Украинский кризис подорвал систему международных отношений. Выявляются заинтересованности мировых центров в разжигании российско -украинского конфликта. Данный конфликт раскрывается в призме американской стратегии сохранения глобального доминирования и как результат смены технологических укладов мировой экономики. Анализируются последствия и вызовы этого конфликта для Республики Армения и необходимость ...

The purpose of the article is to analyze the interests and contradictions between Russia and Turkey in the South Caucasus, which have been aggravated in many aspects by the influence of the Syrian and Ukrainian crises. In these circumstances, Azerbaijan became a key player for Ankara, which allowed the latter to gradually move on its interests in the region. Meanwhile, the formation of the EAEU with the participation of Armenia (without any preconditions on its end) negatively affected the latter's factor, first of all, for Moscow as an ally. On top of it, Turkey and Azerbaijan, contrary to the interests of Armenia, significantly strengthened their geopolitical factors before Russia, against the backdrop of West's political and economic sanctions against Moscow. ; Հոդվածի նպատակը Հարավային Կովկասում Ռուսաստանի և Թուրքիայի շահերի ու հակասությունների վերլուծությունն է, որոնք հիմնականում սրվեցին սիրիական և ուկրաինական ճգնաժամերի ազդեցության տակ: Այդպիսի պայմաններում Ադրբեջանն առանցքային գործիք դարձավ Անկարայի համար, ինչը թույլ տվեց վերջինիս աստիճանաբար առաջ մղել իր շահերը տարածաշրջանում: Միաժամանակ, Հայաստանի մասնակցությամբ ԵԱՏՄ-ի ձևավորումը (նրա կողմից առանց որևէ նախապայմանի) բացասաբար անդրադարձավ նրա գործոնի վրա առաջին հերթին դաշնակից Մոսկվայի հետ հարաբերություններում: Իսկ Մոսկվայի նկատմամբ Արևմուտքի քաղաքական և տնտեսական պատժամիջոցների ֆոնին Թուրքիան և Ադրբեջանը, ի հեճուկս Հայաստանի շահերի, զգալիորեն ամրապնդեցին իրենց աշխարհաքաղաքական գործոնները Ռուսաստանի հետ հարաբերություններում: ; Целью статьи является анализ интересов и противоречий России и Турции на Южном Кавказе, которые, во многом, обострились под влиянием сирийского и украинского кризисов. В этих условиях Азербайджан стал ключевым инструментом для Анкары, что позволило последней приступить к постепенному продвижению своих интересов в регионе. Тем временем, образование ЕАЭС с участием Армении (без каких-либо предварительных условий с ее стороны), отрицательно отразилось на ее факторе, в первую очередь, в отношениях с союзной Москвой. А на фоне политических и экономических санкций Запада против Москвы, Турция и Азербайджан, в противовес интересам Армении, значительно усилили свои геополитические факторы в отношениях с Россией.

In recent decades, the United States has increasingly used the means of economic warfare in its geopolitical struggles. Among these instruments – in addition to the financial markets – it most often launches geoeconomic attacks in the oil market against its geopolitical adversaries. The United States can cause significant economic damage both for oil exporter (eg. Iran, Venezuela) and oil importer (eg. Cuba, North Korea) countries by restricting their access to oil markets.This paper analyzes the economic warfare in the oil market between the United States and Iran, Russia, and North Korea. Through these examples this paper demonstrates how the United States organizes and executes geoeconomic attacks in the oil market and how it handles country-specific problems. The United States has the means to organize broad international coalition alongside the oil market sanctions – even in the lack of UN Security Council resolutions.United Nations has decided on a number of economic sanctions against Iran because of its nuclear program. These sanctions reduced the supply in the world oil market and resulted in about 10-20% price increase, while Iran – despite of the sanctions – found the way to sell significant amount of oil, mainly to China and India.Russia is a member of the UN Security Council, so no UN sanctions can be imposed on it, nevertheless the United States and its allies launched a geoeconomics assault against Russia after the annexation of the Crimea. Russia was prepared for these economic sanctions and could effectively reduce the negative effects on its oil export, which could even increase after the western sanctions. North Korea is under UN sanctions since 2006 because of its nuclear program. The sanctions refer to oil and oil products as well, but has no significant effect on world oil market and oil price, because North Korea is a relatively small country with low oil consumption.North Korea is suffering a huge economic burden due to severe restrictions and its only way to circumvent the embargo – according to American accusations – is to smuggle some oil from China and Russia. ; In recent decades, the United States has increasingly used the means of economic warfare in its geopolitical struggles. Among these instruments – in addition to the financial markets – it most often launches geoeconomic attacks in the oil market against its geopolitical adversaries. The United States can cause significant economic damage both for oil exporter (eg. Iran, Venezuela) and oil importer (eg. Cuba, North Korea) countries by restricting their access to oil markets.This paper analyzes the economic warfare in the oil market between the United States and Iran, Russia, and North Korea. Through these examples this paper demonstrates how the United States organizes and executes geoeconomic attacks in the oil market and how it handles country-specific problems. The United States has the means to organize broad international coalition alongside the oil market sanctions – even in the lack of UN Security Council resolutions.United Nations has decided on a number of economic sanctions against Iran because of its nuclear program. These sanctions reduced the supply in the world oil market and resulted in about 10-20% price increase, while Iran – despite of the sanctions – found the way to sell significant amount of oil, mainly to China and India.Russia is a member of the UN Security Council, so no UN sanctions can be imposed on it, nevertheless the United States and its allies launched a geoeconomics assault against Russia after the annexation of the Crimea. Russia was prepared for these economic sanctions and could effectively reduce the negative effects on its oil export, which could even increase after the western sanctions. North Korea is under UN sanctions since 2006 because of its nuclear program. The sanctions refer to oil and oil products as well, but has no significant effect on world oil market and oil price, because North Korea is a relatively small country with low oil consumption.North Korea is suffering a huge economic burden due to severe restrictions and its only way to circumvent the embargo – according to American accusations – is to smuggle some oil from China and Russia.

Energy is one of the key tools of Russian geopolitical advocacy that Russia can still use efficiently through the energy supply systems built up after WWII and that is still unavoidable. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the advocacy role of the Russian state has decreased however it has never completely lost its influence on the energy sector and thereby on the countries depending on it. We can speak about the active use of energy relations as a tool of political advocacy again since 2006, nonetheless we cannot observe a complete lack of use of these tools between 1990 and 2006 either. The former Soviet republics and the former satellite countries were the targets of these actions, which illustrates the long-term effects of energy dependency systems developed between 1945 and 1990. The 2006 Russian-Ukrainian conflict was the first, when Russia did not only threaten with but actually reduced the amount of natural gas transported. During the 2006 and the 2009 Russian-Ukrainian conflicts, it became clear that Russia actually uses limitation of supply and price policy pressure and not only as a means of threat in order to enforce its political interests, even accepting its negative consequences.

Ukraine's division today is mostly a consequence of its peripheral status: throughout the course of history the Ukrainians should (have) achieve(d) independence and the establishment of a sovereign state in the political vacuum that developed due to the rivalry of the neighboring great powers. In the East-European region Ukraine did have a state several times for a short period and in a much debated way, but it only gained complete sovereignity in 1991, while Russia had considered Ukraine, which "voluntarily joined" the empire in 1654, part of the Russian state. What has also contributed to Ukraine's division and the belated establishment of a state was that it did not have a unified national identity: in East- and Central Ukraine, which were continuously under Russian rule from the middle of the 17th century, a strong national movement could never develop. Then, following the partition of Poland, when West-Ukraine – with the exception of Galicia – became part of Russia, most of the Ukrainian territories belonged to – but did not comprise – one state. In Galicia, which was the western border of the eastern Slavic territories and was under the considerably liberal rule of Austria, and was called "the Ukrainian Piedmont", a stronger national self-consciousness developed after 1772. That is why it was there that the idea of a unified Ukrainian state was conceived first, the realization of which, however, took more than a hundred years, because of the division and weak national consciousness of the Ukrainians.

The Hungarian railway network with the latest and most advanced in the XIX–XX. at the turn of the century. The railway network plays a crucial role not only within the country's borders, but the whole of Europe. The nationalities wanted to create their own state in the Austro - Hungarian monarchy. The Entente validate their own political and economic interests of the Páruzsi peace talks, was used for the national aspirations. The world changes strengthened the political aspirations of the Entente. The strategic interests also justify their decisions. Soviet Russia and the European labor movement organization of great danger to the Entente countries. Politicians of the Entente countries have developed the boundaries of the Central European countries, on the basis of these two reasons. They split up the single railway network in small units. Austria wants now to standardize the components, according to their own interests. Hungary can not promote their own interests in the field of European rail services.