Suchergebnisse

Since the end of the Cold War, the United States of America has pursued an offensive foreign policy. In the realities of the 2010s and 2020s, marked by mounting resistance to American global dominance, primarily from Russia and China, there are prerequisites for the adjustment of the U.S. foreign policy strategy. The aim of the article is to identify the underlying causes of offensiveness in U.S. foreign policy of the post–bipolar period based on theoretical constructs of offensive realism and liberalism. Research has shown that offensive realism and offensive liberalism can help understand the offensive nature of U.S. foreign policy after 1991 in their own way and make appropriate projections for the future. Based on the tenets of offensive realism, it can be assumed that the collapse of the Soviet Union and communism have created an enabling environment for maximizing the power of the United States, which Washington could not but leverage. Witnessing the dwindling U.S. power potential, as well as the strengthening of China and Russia in the 2010s – 2020s, Washington has not stopped acting in the logic of offensive realism, but under the Trump and Biden administrations it has definitely began to move towards defensive realism. As the rivals to the US continue to strengthen their capacities, this trend can only intensify. Following the tenets of offensive liberalism, it is possible to assume that after the Cold War, the power of the United States has turned out to be so great in comparison with other great and major powers that Washington has begun to offensively build an American liberal hegemony, letting power rivalry falls by the wayside. However, due to the weakening of the U.S. power potential, as well as the simultaneous rise of China and Russia, it has been forced to begin a transition to a strategy based on offensive and defensive realism under the Trump and Biden administrations. If its rivals continue to rise, the U.S. may turn away from offense altogether.

Политика США на Ближнем Востоке на протяжении десятилетий оказывает серьезное влияние на политическое и экономическое состояние региона. Ближний Восток, в свою очередь, был и остается важным направлением для каждой американской администрации. Действия последних президентов США радикально изменили традиционный американский подход к политике на Ближнем Востоке и, в частности, к палестино-израильскому вопросу более того, эти действия стали импульсом к началу революционных изменений в сложной мозаике ближневосточных противоречий. Ситуация на Ближнем Востоке меняется, выражается это в нормализации отношений между Израилем и такими странами арабского лагеря, как ОАЭ, Бахрейн и Судан. Цель исследования – рассмотреть процесс формирования ближневосточной политики США и подходы к ближневосточной политике различных американских лидеров с целью определения «классического» американского подхода. Для достижения цели необходимо решить следующие задачи: рассмотреть историю американо-израильского сотрудничества и политики США в регионе для определения «традиционных» особенностей американского ближневосточного подхода и подхода к решению палестинской проблемы; изучить некоторые результаты политики американских президентов на ближневосточном направлении и определить, как она вписывается в «классическую» американскую политику. В процессе исследования использованы исторический метод и метод сравнительного анализа. Изменения, произошедшие на Ближнем Востоке за последние 4 года, революционны. Перенос американского посольства в Иерусалим, признание Америкой Голландских высот частью Израиля, заключение мирных соглашений между Израилем и некоторыми арабскими странами на фоне рекордно быстрого израильского строительства на оккупированных палестинских землях – еще вчера все это казалось невозможным, а уже сегодня является неотъемлемой частью реальности на Ближнем Востоке. Наиболее важным трендом остается процесс нормализации отношений между Израилем и арабскими странами.

United States of America (U.S.) is still undoubtedly the most powerful state in the world therefore diverse analysis of its foreign policy is very important. There is no doubt that U.S. tries to secure its current position using various foreign policy instruments. What can be called U.S. Grand Strategy depends on many external and internal factors and foreign policy visions of two main political parties of U.S. are not at last place. Political parties can possibly be important object of foreign policy analysis in case when state's democratic political system is fully functioning and state has many competing visions of its role in international arena. These features are typical of U.S. political system therefore analysis of foreign policy visions of state's two main political parties is very relevant. The main object of this research is foreign policy views of the Republican Party of United States. The main goal of this research is to analyse change of foreign policy views of the Republican Party in the period 2000 - 2013. U.S. political system is characterized by strong presidential institution that has authority to lead state's foreign policy. However U.S. Congress also has various political instruments that can be used to support or restrict initiatives of U.S. President. President is also the leading voice and leader of his political party and represents consensus of party's ideology. This research concludes that U.S. political parties are broad coalitions of various social, interest groups. Due to this feature, distinct caucuses exist inside political parties. They can support totally different policy options. Consensus that can help sustain party's discipline is reached only in the process of permanent negotiations among these caucuses. Analysed period is important because it signifies shift of U.S. foreign policy priorities and also shift of dominant foreign policy views of the Republican Party. Changes of dominant foreign policy views in this period demonstrated that different foreign policy visions had always existed among conservative politicians, experts, think tanks and other institutions. Predominance of particular values is best highlighted by presidential leadership and his foreign policy doctrine. This research is divided into three main parts. This research uses explanatory case study method that is based on content analysis of political addresses, speeches, documents and secondary sources.

Smart power is a completely new phenomenon in international relations. It is defined as a smart combination of hard and soft powers"tools, which leads to effective foreign policy. Smart power is closely related with the case of the United States, in which even the highest officials in their rhetorics use the term of smart power. According to officials, smart power is an objective in foreign policy. Therefore there is a need to research if the USA uses smart power in its foreign policy towards China after 2009. The subject of this study is the use of smart power in foreign policy of the United States towards China since 2009. The aim of this study is to research if the U.S. uses the smart power as a tool of foreign policy in relations with China after the year 2009. To achieve this aim the following goals are settled: to present a theory of international relations realism, and its main ideas and types, distinguishing neoclassical realism; to discuss the term of power in international relations by distinguishing soft and hard power forms, and to present the concept of smart power by highlighting its origins, definition, application and tools; to perform an analyses of official U. S. rhetorics towards China after year 2009 by analyzing National security strategy and the speeches of the highest officials, and by evaluating the smart power evidence in those rhetorics; to analyze the smart power in U.S. foreign policy towards China after 2009 by using a structured interview method with international relations" experts. The defendant statement/hypothesis of this paper: the United States uses smart power as a tool of foreign policy towards China after 2009. Smart power is based on the principle when in a given situation the appropriate tool or combination of tools is selected in order to reach successful and effective foreign policy. While the smart power is neither hard nor soft power, it is often described as the method of power application, but not as a new form of power. The tools of smart power include both hard power and soft power tools, between which there are diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal and cultural instruments. The results of official U.S. rhetorics analyses suggest that smart power is declared as a foreign policy of U.S. towards China tool after 2009. Both the National Security Strategy and the official rhetoric of the highest officials suggest that the United States seeks to strengthen soft power tools, which became the priority, together with well-developed hard power. However, according to experts on international relations, the use of smart power in U.S. relations with China after 2009 is unimportant part of foreign policy. Smart power is an appropriate term to describe U.S foreign policy towards China after 2009, but it is not relevant during the process of policy formation.

В статье рассматриваются отношения Казахстана с основ­ными внешнеполитическими партнерами, такими как Россия, США, ЕС, Турция и Китай. Раскрывается, как в Казахстане по­нимается политика многовекторности, в чем преимущества и недостатки этой позиции. Делается вывод о том, что для дальнейшего динамичного развития и обеспечения своей на­циональной безопасности, для Казахстана крайне важным представляется сотрудничество с Российской Федерацией.
The article examines Kazakhstan's relations with major foreign policy partners such as Russia, the US, the EU, Turkey and China. It reveals how the multi-vector policy is understood in Kazakhstan, what are the advantages and disadvantages of this position. It is concluded that for further dynamic development and ensuring its national security, cooperation with the Russian Federation is extremely important for Kazakhstan.

A recent conspiracy about U.S. troops points to the wider problem of unregulated media in Iraq's polarized political environment.

In present article internal factors influencing Lithuanian foreign policy iden- tity are analysed: the image of Russia and the United States in the context of Lithuanian foreign policy identity, constructed by two important Lithuanian institutions (President and mass media of Lithuania) is researched. The arti- cle aims to compare Russia's and the U.S. image, constructed on two different levels: in the official rhetorics of Lithuanian president and in Lithuanian mass media. The comparison is made on the basis of following criteria: perception of Russia and the U.S. as "Other" of Lithuanian foreign policy identity; per- ception of mutual interests, perception of interests that differ.

In present article internal factors influencing Lithuanian foreign policy iden- tity are analysed: the image of Russia and the United States in the context of Lithuanian foreign policy identity, constructed by two important Lithuanian institutions (President and mass media of Lithuania) is researched. The arti- cle aims to compare Russia's and the U.S. image, constructed on two different levels: in the official rhetorics of Lithuanian president and in Lithuanian mass media. The comparison is made on the basis of following criteria: perception of Russia and the U.S. as "Other" of Lithuanian foreign policy identity; per- ception of mutual interests, perception of interests that differ.

In present article internal factors influencing Lithuanian foreign policy iden- tity are analysed: the image of Russia and the United States in the context of Lithuanian foreign policy identity, constructed by two important Lithuanian institutions (President and mass media of Lithuania) is researched. The arti- cle aims to compare Russia's and the U.S. image, constructed on two different levels: in the official rhetorics of Lithuanian president and in Lithuanian mass media. The comparison is made on the basis of following criteria: perception of Russia and the U.S. as "Other" of Lithuanian foreign policy identity; per- ception of mutual interests, perception of interests that differ.

From a historical perspective, it is important to note that Australia's foreign policy, as an autonomous and independent from the United Kingdom, began to take shape quite late. It was the Second World War when the weakening Great Britain remained unable to maintain the colonial government in many of its colonies and overseas territories. Australia used this situation to seek closer relations with the United States. Since the formation of the country's foreign policy beginning in Australia's foreign policy a U.S made the major impact. It is emphasized that Australia's foreign policy not only could not be seen without the U.S., but the country would mean the loss of Australia's main strategic partner and key defensive capacity. On the other hand, the U.S. is actively engaged, Australia to turn their satellite. De facto this country can be called the ambassador of the U.S. in Southeast Asia and Oceania. While Australia can be considered one of the region's leaders, however, Australia is a country characterized by an inferiority complex. This circumstance complicates the spread of its influence in the region and aims to become a strong "Medium Power". Australia's interest in the region cannot be denied, however, has seen its capacity levels to those of the world, which not only does not affect the development of the country, and provide questionable benefits to the Australian policies. It is noted that Australia since the start of cooperation with the United States actively participates in all of the U.S. wars. So we can predict that the next step would be to complete the Australian military's entrance into the U.S. armed forces, then the transfer of powers to the foreign policy of the Washington administration. It should be noted that such a step in Canberra is likely if it would be a real threat. Australia, through its humble U.S. policy and at the same time to the region's power in Asia and Oceania, has recently faced with the Chinese ambition to become a regional hegemony. While in China this step seems perfectly logical, but for Canberra administration, this situation is worrying. For this reason, Australian and the U.S. administrations in the near future may become even more intense, and Canberra may seek greater U.S. military presence in increasing the number of its territory. Subject of research was selected - "Forreign Policy of Australia: Development and Pecularity". The paper presents the foreign policy development, analyzed the problems of foreign policy in the region and globally. The paper aims to reveal the Australian foreign policy in the region's stability and its development. Seen not only in the past and the present, but also reveals the possible scenarios for the region. Australia's foreign policy can be identified as having specific characteristics and thus stands apart from other large and medium-sized countries. Adapting to the current situation it is actively reconfiguring its ongoing foreign policy. Australia's foreign policy is still making its development, and this formation already takes more than 40 years. This unique phenomenon is unique to Australian politics. Revealed the importance of Australia's foreign policy is its desire to dominate the Southern Hemisphere, South Africa, and East Asia. It should be noted that the twenty-first century. Australia's foreign policy focuses on one region - South-East Asia. Party is important to maintain peace and stability in Southeast Asia, because the region is important for Australia of their economic potential, and energy resources.

From a historical perspective, it is important to note that Australia's foreign policy, as an autonomous and independent from the United Kingdom, began to take shape quite late. It was the Second World War when the weakening Great Britain remained unable to maintain the colonial government in many of its colonies and overseas territories. Australia used this situation to seek closer relations with the United States. Since the formation of the country's foreign policy beginning in Australia's foreign policy a U.S made the major impact. It is emphasized that Australia's foreign policy not only could not be seen without the U.S., but the country would mean the loss of Australia's main strategic partner and key defensive capacity. On the other hand, the U.S. is actively engaged, Australia to turn their satellite. De facto this country can be called the ambassador of the U.S. in Southeast Asia and Oceania. While Australia can be considered one of the region's leaders, however, Australia is a country characterized by an inferiority complex. This circumstance complicates the spread of its influence in the region and aims to become a strong "Medium Power". Australia's interest in the region cannot be denied, however, has seen its capacity levels to those of the world, which not only does not affect the development of the country, and provide questionable benefits to the Australian policies. It is noted that Australia since the start of cooperation with the United States actively participates in all of the U.S. wars. So we can predict that the next step would be to complete the Australian military's entrance into the U.S. armed forces, then the transfer of powers to the foreign policy of the Washington administration. It should be noted that such a step in Canberra is likely if it would be a real threat. Australia, through its humble U.S. policy and at the same time to the region's power in Asia and Oceania, has recently faced with the Chinese ambition to become a regional hegemony. While in China this step seems perfectly logical, but for Canberra administration, this situation is worrying. For this reason, Australian and the U.S. administrations in the near future may become even more intense, and Canberra may seek greater U.S. military presence in increasing the number of its territory. Subject of research was selected - "Forreign Policy of Australia: Development and Pecularity". The paper presents the foreign policy development, analyzed the problems of foreign policy in the region and globally. The paper aims to reveal the Australian foreign policy in the region's stability and its development. Seen not only in the past and the present, but also reveals the possible scenarios for the region. Australia's foreign policy can be identified as having specific characteristics and thus stands apart from other large and medium-sized countries. Adapting to the current situation it is actively reconfiguring its ongoing foreign policy. Australia's foreign policy is still making its development, and this formation already takes more than 40 years. This unique phenomenon is unique to Australian politics. Revealed the importance of Australia's foreign policy is its desire to dominate the Southern Hemisphere, South Africa, and East Asia. It should be noted that the twenty-first century. Australia's foreign policy focuses on one region - South-East Asia. Party is important to maintain peace and stability in Southeast Asia, because the region is important for Australia of their economic potential, and energy resources.

From a historical perspective, it is important to note that Australia's foreign policy, as an autonomous and independent from the United Kingdom, began to take shape quite late. It was the Second World War when the weakening Great Britain remained unable to maintain the colonial government in many of its colonies and overseas territories. Australia used this situation to seek closer relations with the United States. Since the formation of the country's foreign policy beginning in Australia's foreign policy a U.S made the major impact. It is emphasized that Australia's foreign policy not only could not be seen without the U.S., but the country would mean the loss of Australia's main strategic partner and key defensive capacity. On the other hand, the U.S. is actively engaged, Australia to turn their satellite. De facto this country can be called the ambassador of the U.S. in Southeast Asia and Oceania. While Australia can be considered one of the region's leaders, however, Australia is a country characterized by an inferiority complex. This circumstance complicates the spread of its influence in the region and aims to become a strong "Medium Power". Australia's interest in the region cannot be denied, however, has seen its capacity levels to those of the world, which not only does not affect the development of the country, and provide questionable benefits to the Australian policies. It is noted that Australia since the start of cooperation with the United States actively participates in all of the U.S. wars. So we can predict that the next step would be to complete the Australian military's entrance into the U.S. armed forces, then the transfer of powers to the foreign policy of the Washington administration. It should be noted that such a step in Canberra is likely if it would be a real threat. Australia, through its humble U.S. policy and at the same time to the region's power in Asia and Oceania, has recently faced with the Chinese ambition to become a regional hegemony. While in China this step seems perfectly logical, but for Canberra administration, this situation is worrying. For this reason, Australian and the U.S. administrations in the near future may become even more intense, and Canberra may seek greater U.S. military presence in increasing the number of its territory. Subject of research was selected - "Forreign Policy of Australia: Development and Pecularity". The paper presents the foreign policy development, analyzed the problems of foreign policy in the region and globally. The paper aims to reveal the Australian foreign policy in the region's stability and its development. Seen not only in the past and the present, but also reveals the possible scenarios for the region. Australia's foreign policy can be identified as having specific characteristics and thus stands apart from other large and medium-sized countries. Adapting to the current situation it is actively reconfiguring its ongoing foreign policy. Australia's foreign policy is still making its development, and this formation already takes more than 40 years. This unique phenomenon is unique to Australian politics. Revealed the importance of Australia's foreign policy is its desire to dominate the Southern Hemisphere, South Africa, and East Asia. It should be noted that the twenty-first century. Australia's foreign policy focuses on one region - South-East Asia. Party is important to maintain peace and stability in Southeast Asia, because the region is important for Australia of their economic potential, and energy resources.