Suchergebnisse

The author firstly examines cultural & historical potentials of Russia, analyzing them in their positive & negative aspects. Western ability to fully confront contemporary problems is then challenged through a brief account of the cultural crisis in its society in order to establish, through an analysis of the specific reception of that crisis in Russia, whether it can offer new, fresh &/or different solutions to global problems. Finally, basic Russian cultural & political values are depicted through the history of their actions globally & the power & significance of those values is defended as exceptionally fruitful for appliance to the contemporary socio-political situation, as to the challenges that lay before the global society in the future. References. Adapted from the source document.

The dissolution of the great Soviet empire & the demise of the socialist system in the Soviet Union & Eastern Europe has undoubtedly been one of the most significant political developments at the turn of the 20th century. Whether this was brought about by international factors or by the internal cave-in of the system has been the subject of numerous & extensive analyses. It is obvious that the geostrategic shifts & the completely altered position of the new state (the Russian Federation) have made it necessary to look into the political aspects of the problem. That Russia is not faced with an imminent threat from abroad is certainly an extraordinary change, unprecedented in the long Russian history. This particularly applies to the western Russian borders, which used to be almost continually threatened. Political relations that have been developing between Russia & the West, despite all the obstacles, have been improving, & both sides demonstrate a willingness to continue with this trend. Adapted from the source document.

The disintegration of the socialist regime in Europe did away with the bipolar model of world order & inaugurated a new phase in seeking a new structure & model of international relations. This new world order, only broadly outlined & characterized by (mostly) unilateral leadership, has already been challenged. Two superpowers -- the People's Republic of China & Russia -- condemn the hegemony, unilateralism, & attempts at dictating international relations. China & Russia are supported by a group of disgruntled countries who also think that a broadly based multipolarity is the direction that international relations & the new world order should take. Judging by these challenges & criticisms, it might be said that only multilateral cooperativeness can guarantee validity to the nascent world order. 15 References. Adapted from the source document.

Although it is not the primary reason for Russian economic collapse in Aug 1998, the permanent crisis of the Russian political system after 1991 had contributed to this breakdown. A major role in all this was played by the process of privatization by which Russian natural & 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. 34 References. Adapted from the source document.

Due to their strategic position, the Baltic states, throughout their history, have always been a kind of buffer zone, which has to a large extent affected their development. In the new European environment, the Baltic region is today somewhat marginalized, but because of its proximity to Russia, it has an important strategic position. The Baltic states want to join NATO & the EU because they in this see a guarantee of their security & stability. This may also be an opportunity for solving the very delicate relationship with Russia, still an important actor influencing the Baltic states. 15 References. Adapted from the source document.

The EU enlargement to 25 members has significantly changed the political & economic map of the contemporary Europe. EU has become a relevant factor in international relations. At the same time there are certain dilemmas concerning the prospects for the future development & nature of the Union. Considering the fact that the EU geopolitical position has moved eastwards, the author wonders how far the Union might spread towards the East, i.e. where the boundaries of the united Europe might be, & what should be the EU policy towards its Eastern neighbors (Russia, Byelorussia, the Ukraine & Moldova). References. Adapted from the source document.

After the breakup of the USSR, and the several rounds of Post-Cold War enlargements of the Western integrations, once large space of newly independent and geopolitically uncontrolled European post-communist states, located between the EU, NATO and Russia, contracts geopolitically and 'wanders' strategically. The three states, Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova, located on Russia's western borders share about three thousand kilometers of borders with the EU and NATO, and about two thousand and five hundred kilometers with Russia, which implicates that they are prone to the geopolitical influences from their surroundings. This Interspace of the three states lies inside the strategic triangle comprised of: 1) Russia - geopolitically and militarily powerful state as well as a giant considering its energy reserves, which makes her relatively strong 'hard' power as well as a significant 'soft' power; 2) the EU - economic giant on the global level that is not unified enough; has domestic problems and is partially dependent on Russia when it comes to energy, a civilian power without 'hard' power that in its foreign relations relies on policies based on financial assistance, assurance, and attractiveness; 3) NATO, led by the USA - the most powerful military-political-security 'hard' power that exists today; it does not have the kind of influence on Europe and the Post-Soviet space that it had in the 90-ies. However, as a consequence of subordination of the Interspace that lasted for a couple of centuries, the common characteristics intrinsic to this space occur: ambiguous identities; deficits in the democratic practices; complicated, prolonged and incomplete transition; economic decline, demographic problems - all of which favor a strategic 'adoption' of the Interspace by the Kremlin, a former imperial master. At the same time, a relative marginalization of the Interspace is evident regarding the processes of Euro-Atlantic integration. After the unsuccessful attempts of 'pulling out' Kiev, Kishinev, and the South Caucasian Tbilisi from this Russian sphere of influence, the states positioned in the Interspace, together with Russia, comprise a regional security complex, a stabilized geopolitical 'Russosphere' that is a key part of the Kremlin's attempts for Eurasian reintegration under Russia's leadership. Adapted from the source document.