Suchergebnisse

The aim of this article was to portray the complexity of the crisis/war in Ukraine, an event that has shaken Europe more than any other since World War II. The complexity of the crisis could be located in the involvement of external powers (Russia, US, NATO, EU, Turkey, etc.). Zbigniew Brzezinski throws light on the geopolitical significance of Ukraine in the context of the tendency of great powers to secure dominance in Eurasia. Brzezinski assigned Ukraine as a "pivotal" figure on the "Eurasian chessboard" due to its vital geostrategic position, major resources, access to the Black Sea, and importance for Russian strategic interests. In terms of a realist perspective and geopolitical thoughts, Brzezinski's writings still represent a valuable asset in the analysis of the current crisis in Ukraine.

Głównym przedmiotem analizy w artykule jest badanie akademickiej i politycznej aktywności Zbigniewa Brzezińskiego. Zbigniew Brzeziński urodził się jako syn polskiego dyplomaty w Warszawie w 1928 roku. Część czasów młodości spędził we Francji i w Niemczech, zanim Jego ojciec w służbie dyplomatycznej został wysłany w 1938 roku do Kanady. Był nauczycielem akademickim na uniwersytetach Harward i Kolumbia. W badaniach naukowych podejmował tematykę komunistycznego totalitaryzmu. Był doradcą prezydenta J. Cartera do spraw bezpieczeństwa narodowego, wywierając znaczny wpływ na politykę zagraniczną Stanów Zjednoczonych w owym czasie.

Dysfunctional states based on the example of Ukraine – a problem analysis The analysis of Ukraine's dysfunction and dependence, both in national and international dimension, presents a clear picture that the dilemma of whether we are faced with a consolidation of a truly liberal democracy or its non-liberal (hybrid) variety, is still valid. Debates in political sciences are dominated by the view that independent Ukraine ought to be considered a specific case of the so-called "hybrid state". Such countries are characterized by stagnation, corruption, and a dominant position of elites, who offer few benefits to the state and have little public support. In addition, the following are clearly visible in Ukraine: little representation of public interests by state institutions; little political involvement of the society and little social activity in between elections; no respect for regulations of the state under the rule of the law; little public legitimization in elections; little public trust in state institutions/the institution of the state; inadequate operation of the state in general. Therefore, the fact that transformation processes which have been emerging in Ukraine, ought not be considered linear, should be acknowledged. Consequently, describing the character of these processes in view of their complexity and multidimensionality seems more relevant.