Suchergebnisse

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.

After the cold war, when the Eastern block collapsed, considerable changes were made in the world security architecture. Althought it seemed like a beginning of more certain and secure era, cold war ending didn't fulfill expectations neither the main actors in the cold war conflict, nor the expectations of the rest of the world. Besides, collapse of one block, didn't stop growth dynamic of new power centers. Tendencies for power are not new and unfamiliar to human. When bypolar system collapsed, other subjects started fighting for the positions. PRC role with her enormous people potential, growing economy and strengthened military is evident. Soviet Union, accordingly Russian Federation, believed that there was no more need for strenghtening the other block, especially when the opposite doesn't exist. But, former partners included the opposite side, and that made more tensions between Russia and United States. Rest of the world didn't get better chance to create own future. On the contrary, especially for the peripheral and semiperipheral countries, new threats appeared that destabilized individual and collective security. Efforts to make human community rational, were always idealism and those efforts were considered utopian, but under the given circumstances, for the international stability, the most accseptable model is model of global triangle - China, Russia, USA. Reason why this three countries is ther specific potention: USA is powerful technological, military and political center, RF is worlds warehouse' and China is the worlds manufacture. In the globalism domination over nationalism era that model could be the optimal 'braking and balance' system in the international relations- political ideal that all liberal schools wanted to acchievestarting Lock, Montesquieu, Rousseau till today.

In this paper the authors examine the dynamics of security relations of the three key security actors in the Euro-Atlantic area - NATO, Russia, and the European Union. Based on their findings, and using a comparative analysis of the actors' doctrinal and strategic documents, as well as their observations of contemporary challenges, risks and threats, the authors discuss if, and to what extent, their productive security cooperation is possible, or their positions are opposed in such a way that in short and medium terms only disputes or less or more open conflicts are likely to be expected between them. This leads to a conclusion that a majority of recognized security challenges, risks and threats are shared, as well as that these actors see each other not only as competitors but also as partners in the struggle against those challenges, risks and threats, which opens possibilities of security cooperation.

Докторска дисертација «Русија на почетку XXI века – геополитичка анализа» је рад који се састоји из шест делова. У првом делу «Теоретско – методолошки увод» је постављена методолошко појмовна основа рада, извршен преглед досадашњих истраживања на ову тему и сабрани и анализирани потребни извори и литература. Други део «Физичко – географске одлике територије данашње Русије» се бави анализом и вредновањем рељефа и педолошког покривача, климе, хидрографског потенцијала, биљног и животињског света, те рудног и енергетског блага на подручју савремене Русије. Док су први и други део рада квантитативно невелики (слично петом и шестом делу), трећи и четврти део обухватају највећи део дисертације. Трећи део «Историјска анализа геополитичке позиције Русије» се бави територијалним развојем руске државе кроз историју, при чему су анализирани и остали геополитички значајни фактори генезе њеног историјског положаја. Посебно је посматран утицај који су на Русију кроз историју имали континенти на којима се распростире, а извршена је и анализа билатералних историјских односа са најзначајнијим суседима и светским силама, где су уочене и извесне геополитичке правилности (по историчару Броделу то би биле историјске појаве «средњег» и «дугог трајања»). Четврти део «Геополитичка позиција савремене Русије» анализира данашњу Русију са унутрашње и међународне позиције. У оквиру унутрашње позиције се анализира економија, демографија, социолошка структура, култура и унутрашњо – политичка позиција савремене руске државе. У односу на окружење се анализира укупна позиција Русије у свету и посебно у односу на суседе и поједине важне државе (са свим државама Европе и Азије и са најважнијим силама на другим континентима). Пети део «Перспективе Русије у следећим деценијама XXI века» садржи основне елементе предвиђања унутрашњег развоја земље, као и њену позицију у светским токовима. Шести део је прегледни «Закључак». ; Doktorska disertacija «Rusija na početku XXI veka – geopolitička analiza» je rad koji se sastoji iz šest delova. U prvom delu «Teoretsko – metodološki uvod» je postavljena metodološko pojmovna osnova rada, izvršen pregled dosadašnjih istraživanja na ovu temu i sabrani i analizirani potrebni izvori i literatura. Drugi deo «Fizičko – geografske odlike teritorije današnje Rusije» se bavi analizom i vrednovanjem reljefa i pedološkog pokrivača, klime, hidrografskog potencijala, biljnog i životinjskog sveta, te rudnog i energetskog blaga na području savremene Rusije. Dok su prvi i drugi deo rada kvantitativno neveliki (slično petom i šestom delu), treći i četvrti deo obuhvataju najveći deo disertacije. Treći deo «Istorijska analiza geopolitičke pozicije Rusije» se bavi teritorijalnim razvojem ruske države kroz istoriju, pri čemu su analizirani i ostali geopolitički značajni faktori geneze njenog istorijskog položaja. Posebno je posmatran uticaj koji su na Rusiju kroz istoriju imali kontinenti na kojima se rasprostire, a izvršena je i analiza bilateralnih istorijskih odnosa sa najznačajnijim susedima i svetskim silama, gde su uočene i izvesne geopolitičke pravilnosti (po istoričaru Brodelu to bi bile istorijske pojave «srednjeg» i «dugog trajanja»). Četvrti deo «Geopolitička pozicija savremene Rusije» analizira današnju Rusiju sa unutrašnje i međunarodne pozicije. U okviru unutrašnje pozicije se analizira ekonomija, demografija, sociološka struktura, kultura i unutrašnjo – politička pozicija savremene ruske države. U odnosu na okruženje se analizira ukupna pozicija Rusije u svetu i posebno u odnosu na susede i pojedine važne države (sa svim državama Evrope i Azije i sa najvažnijim silama na drugim kontinentima). Peti deo «Perspektive Rusije u sledećim decenijama XXI veka» sadrži osnovne elemente predviđanja unutrašnjeg razvoja zemlje, kao i njenu poziciju u svetskim tokovima. Šesti deo je pregledni «Zaključak». ; The doctor dissertation named "Russia in the beginning of the 21th century – geopolitical analyses" is the work which is consisting of the six parts. In the first part "Theoretical methodological introduction" is a setup of the methodologicaly conceptual basis of this work and noticed previous researches of this subject matter and summarized and analyzed the resources and literature. The second part of the work "Phiysical and geographical attributes of the nowdays Russian territory" engages in analyzing and valuing relief and soil cover, climate , hidrographycal potential, wildlife, mineral and energy resources of nowdays Russia. While the first and the second part of this work quantitative are a small (alike the fifth and the sixth parts of the work ) the third and the fourt parts borders is the largest part of dissertation . The third part of the work "An historical analyses geopolitical positions of Russia" engages in territorial development of the Russian Government trough its history whereat are analyzed another geopolitically important factors of genesis its historical position. Especially is observed influence to Russia by continents of its broadcasting and noticed some analyses of the bilateral historical attitudes to the most important neighbourhood and other major world powers , where is noticed some geopolitically regularities (accordin to a famous historian Brodel there are a historical apparations named a period of medium-sized duration and a period of long- sized duration) . The fourth part of the dissertation "Geopolitical position of modern Russia" analyzes nowdays Russia in domestic policy and international context .Within interior position is analysing economy, demography, social structures, culture, and domestic policy position of modern Russia. Concerning to surroundings is analysing position of Russia in wholle especially concerning to the neighbourhood and some important countries ( and all countries of Europe, Asia, and the most important powers of other continents). The fifth part "Perspective of Russia in the next decades of the 21 th century" conteins a basic elements of the anticipations of internal development and Russia's position in the world. The sixth part is a previewed "Epilogue".

The deployment of NATO missile defense shield (EuroPRO) elements in Eastern Europe determines explicitly the so-called strong security of Russia and it represents a serious disruptive factor in its relations with the West. In such context, in the last three years the Ukrainian crisis has additionally complicated and actualized security situation because it turned out that, besides internal factors, it is largely influenced by some external factors, as well. In March 2014 Crimea unilaterally separated from Ukraine and it was joined to Russia whereas an armed conflict between central authorities and armed formations of rebellious pro-Russian population started in the parts of Donetsk and Luhansk. Ukraine accused Russia of the annexation of Crimea; their relations were reduced to minimum and in the last three years they have remained such tendency. The change of Crimean status has largely aggravated the relations of Russia with Western countries, which resulted in complex political and security situation in the Black Sea Region, which threatens to disintegrate the whole system of regional stability with potential implications for global security, as well. The deployment of EuroPRO elements in Romania and militarization of the Crimean Peninsula affect to a great extent regional stability of that part of the old continent and they represent one of essential destabilizing factors that is in direct correlation with a high level of entropy of the European political and security system.

The war in Kosovo and Metohia was the result of a decade long tensions between ethnic Serbs and Albanians. It was led from the air in order to avoid more potential victims in case of land invasion. The end of war was the result of mutual concessions: from NATO side and the Serbian one. The sovereignty of FRY was not put into question, but a great autonomy of Kosovo was predicted including the possibility of independence acquisition (secession). The Resolution 1244 was not abolished, but it was being derogated in order to prepare the fundament of Kosovo independence. Serbian military-security forces were withdrawn from the territory of Kosovo and Metohia. NATO intervention was not legal from the point of view of international law, but it subordinated sovereignty to human rights. Intervention was justified in cases of humanitarian need. Event though humanitarian need (catastrophe) is taken as the basis for the intervention, the example of such kind could not be found in the past. So, Kosovo cases were qualified as sui generis one. Thus, the war in Kosovo became an example to be followed in the future, and an unresolved situation may become the threat to the peace and security in the surrounding countries. Democratic countries give themselves the right to interfere and intervene into internal affairs of others differently from the autocratic ones, which was supposed to be neither correct nor consistent. Kosovo conflict and war rattled global power structure, especially with China and Russia as new challengers of the USA power. Both countries are trying hard to reach USA, but they are still in transition with unstable financial systems, migrations and unresolved system of social protection. Regarding Kosovo conflict and war, they engaged themselves rather indirectly than directly. As Security Council permanent members they were voting against the independence of Kosovo, but did not involve themselves into the war directly. Kosovo war showed how China is backward regarding war technique, and Russia regarding financial engagement. In addition, China expected membership in WTO, and Russia a great financial assistance. Russia engaged in negotiations via the Contact Group. With the arrival of Putin, Russia could not engage in Balkan more militarily but only commercially due to the fact most Balkan countries entered NATO or Partnership for Peace Programme. Internal cohesion of Russia with centralistic governance was reinforced, and ethnic tensions were calmed down. The perspective of Russia is United Nations and commerce through pipeline.

Although it is not the primary reason for Russian economic collapse which occurred in August of 1998, the permanent crisis of Russian political system after 1991 had contributed to this breakdown. A major role in all this was played by the process of privatisation by which Russian natural and economic resources remained in the hands of the political/economic elite. The crisis of the political system in Russia has another consequence - bringing into question not only the attained degree of democratic development but also the future of democracy in Russia. (SOI : SOEU: S. 117)