Suchergebnisse

Vladimir Gel'man har skrevet en fin bog om dårlig styring i den offentlige sektor i Rusland (The Politics of Bad Governance in Contemporary Russia). Gel'mans bog er velskrevet, og den præsenterer teori om governance og politiske systemer, som er illustreret ved både nutidige (russiske) og historiske (sovjetiske) eksempler.
Vladimir Gel'man has written a good book about bad governance in the public sector in Russia (The Politics of Bad Governance in Contemporary Russia). Gel'man's book is well written and it presents theory of governance and political systems illustrated by examples from contemporary Russia and from the USSR.

Den politiske debat i Rusland har i mange år haft et element om en kommende verdensorden. Der har generelt været enighed om, at tilstanden efter ophøret af den kolde krig var uholdbar, og at noget andet og mere blivende ville erstatte den påståede USA-ledede orden. Denne debat er blevet mere akut efter Ruslands invasion af Ukraine den 24. februar 2022. Ruslands præsident Vladimir Putin har efter invasionen rakt ud til især Det globale Syd, og han har ved en række lejlig-heder talt om en ny og mere demokratisk, inkluderende og respektfuld orden. Det er dog vanskeligt at vurdere, i hvilken udstrækning hans løfter skyldes behovet for at skabe nye alliancer, og hvor megen reel vilje der er i Moskva til at reformere fx FN-systemet og lade lande fra Det globale Syd få mere indflydelse.

For many years, the political debate in Russia has contained an element about a coming world order. There has been a general agreement that the state of affairs following the end of the Cold War was untenable, and that something different and more durable would replace the alleged US-led order. This debate has become more acute following Russia's invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022. In the aftermath of the invasion, Russian president Vladimir Putin has reached out to the Global South in particular, and he has spoken about a more democratic, inclusive, and respectful order on numerous occasions. It is difficult to assess, however, to which extent his promises are caused by a need to forge new alliances, and to which extent Moscow is actually willing to reform for instance the UN system and allow the states in the Global South more influence.

Fyrtårnet i Øst er en yderst velskrevet og informativ analyse af den fascination, som Ruslands præsident Vladimir Putin og hans system nyder i mange forskellige kredse i Vesten. Bogen er rig på detaljer, og den dækker et stort antal lande og forskellige typer af Putin-fascination. Den er kærkommen læsning i forbindelse med dels krigen i Ukraine, dels det politiske opgør som vil følge efter krigen. Her vil den uundgåelige diskussion være, om alt for mange gik alt for langt i deres dyrkelse af Putin og hans system?
Fyrtårnet i Øst (Lighthouse in the East) offers a well-written, informative analysis of the fascination accorded to Vladimir Putin and his system in various circles in the West. Rich in details, the book covers a large number of countries and different types of 'Putin fascination'. It is a welcome read in relation to the war in Ukraine, as well as the political showdown which is bound to ensue. The inevitable question will be: did too many go too far in their idolization of Putin and his system?

Flemming Splidsboel Hansen, Senior Researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies, reviews Putin, by Hans-Wilhelm Steinfeld (Cappelen Damm, 2020).

Abstract: What has Remained of the USSR – Exploring the Erosion of the Post-Soviet SpaceFlemming Splidsboel Hansen (Danish Institute for International Studies) reviews What has Remained of the USSR – Exploring the Erosion of the Post-Soviet Space, edited by Arkady Moshes and András Racz.

Danish images of Russia in the 2010sThis article surveys how the editorial columns of five leading Danish newspapers treat Russia in the 2010s, building on an earlier study which focused on the first decade of the 2000s (Hansen 2010). The present study finds that the overall negative trajectory associated with Russia has continued, even grown more pronounced. In response, a minority position has developed on the fringes of political life in Denmark, holding that Russia is being demonized and that media coverage is too negative and essentially one-sided. The Danish newspapers surveyed focus on what is seen as an increasingly aggressive Russia violating borders and other established norms, and threatening its neighbours. The editorials reflect the gradual paradigm shift in views of Russia. They now speak openly of the need for Denmark to protect itself and its allies militarily against possible Russian aggression and to prevent Russia from wielding more power through its energy supplies to Europe, including supplies that traverse Danish territorial waters. Other topics in focus include Russia's invasion and subsequent annexation of Crimea, its involvement in the war in Eastern Ukraine as well as its military campaign in Syria.

Relying on a large quantitative data set from the United Nations General Assembly voting records in the years 1992–2013, this study analyses developments in the foreign policy preferences of the member states of the Commonwealth of Independent States [CIS]. It finds that the general level of disagreement between the member states as a whole has increased significantly and that policies have become more radicalised, causing member states to hold directly opposing views still more often. It also finds that a majority of member states, led by Russia, have converged on the foreign policy mean, causing the core of the organisation to become still denser. This suggests that the CIS will undergo a future development where member states will travel along increasingly different trajectories. This research has important implications for our understanding of the CIS and of the policies of the individual member states.

Established in 1991, the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) is still struggling to define a clear and commonly accepted identity for itself. As the member states hold very different views of the future CIS, they pull the organization in different directions, giving it a somewhat fuzzy character. While the Russian-led core is seeking closer integration, possibly even a transfer of decision-making to the supranational level, another group of states is insisting that the CIS should remain a loose and non-binding forum for cooperation. As a reflection of this reality, the CIS space is home to a number of other organizations which all take their members from the CIS circle. These organizations deliver what the CIS as a whole—because of its lowest common denominator policy—cannot do. The host of acronyms offer something to most member states, but they also cause the CIS space to be highly fragmented. Russia, in particular, has worked to bring all the different parts of the CIS closer together under its own leadership, but has remained largely unsuccessful. With its most recent initiative, a Eurasian Economic Union to be established by 2015, Russia is making a new effort to achieve what has failed so far. Little suggests that it will have any greater success now than before, and it therefore seems likely that the CIS will remain in the future also a complex organizational setting and a difficult challenge for Russia to handle.