Suchergebnisse

One of the most important diplomatic debates of the 1990s evolved around the eastern enlargement of the NATO. In the early years of the foreign policy of the Middle-Eastern countries by now free from soviet influence one major issue was to adapt themselves to the post-cold war world order. All of the countries involved – the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary in the first round – soon realized that their only option was to get integrated into the western organizations, to NATO in particular. The leading politicians of this organization had their doubts about these countries' capability to adapt to the already developed system of the organization. This is mainly illustrated by the fact that until the middle of the decade there was a lack of real commitment to the enlargement of the alliance. The PfP document of January 1994 may be regarded as a breakthrough. The diplomacy of Moscow became more and more dismissive as to the idea of the eastern enlargement of the NATO. Within a few months an attitude that regarded Russia joining the NATO as a possible perspective gave way to the total rejection of the enlargement. This study aims at exploring the determining points of this debate mainly in the light of the most important documents. ; One of the most important diplomatic debates of the 1990s evolved around the eastern enlargement of the NATO. In the early years of the foreign policy of the Middle-Eastern countries by now free from soviet influence one major issue was to adapt themselves to the post-cold war world order. All of the countries involved – the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary in the first round – soon realized that their only option was to get integrated into the western organizations, to NATO in particular. The leading politicians of this organization had their doubts about these countries' capability to adapt to the already developed system of the organization. This is mainly illustrated by the fact that until the middle of the decade there was a lack of real commitment to the enlargement of the alliance. The PfP document of January 1994 may be regarded as a breakthrough. The diplomacy of Moscow became more and more dismissive as to the idea of the eastern enlargement of the NATO. Within a few months an attitude that regarded Russia joining the NATO as a possible perspective gave way to the total rejection of the enlargement. This study aims at exploring the determining points of this debate mainly in the light of the most important documents.

In recent decades, the United States has increasingly used the means of economic warfare in its geopolitical struggles. Among these instruments – in addition to the financial markets – it most often launches geoeconomic attacks in the oil market against its geopolitical adversaries. The United States can cause significant economic damage both for oil exporter (eg. Iran, Venezuela) and oil importer (eg. Cuba, North Korea) countries by restricting their access to oil markets.This paper analyzes the economic warfare in the oil market between the United States and Iran, Russia, and North Korea. Through these examples this paper demonstrates how the United States organizes and executes geoeconomic attacks in the oil market and how it handles country-specific problems. The United States has the means to organize broad international coalition alongside the oil market sanctions – even in the lack of UN Security Council resolutions.United Nations has decided on a number of economic sanctions against Iran because of its nuclear program. These sanctions reduced the supply in the world oil market and resulted in about 10-20% price increase, while Iran – despite of the sanctions – found the way to sell significant amount of oil, mainly to China and India.Russia is a member of the UN Security Council, so no UN sanctions can be imposed on it, nevertheless the United States and its allies launched a geoeconomics assault against Russia after the annexation of the Crimea. Russia was prepared for these economic sanctions and could effectively reduce the negative effects on its oil export, which could even increase after the western sanctions. North Korea is under UN sanctions since 2006 because of its nuclear program. The sanctions refer to oil and oil products as well, but has no significant effect on world oil market and oil price, because North Korea is a relatively small country with low oil consumption.North Korea is suffering a huge economic burden due to severe restrictions and its only way to circumvent the embargo – according to American accusations – is to smuggle some oil from China and Russia. ; In recent decades, the United States has increasingly used the means of economic warfare in its geopolitical struggles. Among these instruments – in addition to the financial markets – it most often launches geoeconomic attacks in the oil market against its geopolitical adversaries. The United States can cause significant economic damage both for oil exporter (eg. Iran, Venezuela) and oil importer (eg. Cuba, North Korea) countries by restricting their access to oil markets.This paper analyzes the economic warfare in the oil market between the United States and Iran, Russia, and North Korea. Through these examples this paper demonstrates how the United States organizes and executes geoeconomic attacks in the oil market and how it handles country-specific problems. The United States has the means to organize broad international coalition alongside the oil market sanctions – even in the lack of UN Security Council resolutions.United Nations has decided on a number of economic sanctions against Iran because of its nuclear program. These sanctions reduced the supply in the world oil market and resulted in about 10-20% price increase, while Iran – despite of the sanctions – found the way to sell significant amount of oil, mainly to China and India.Russia is a member of the UN Security Council, so no UN sanctions can be imposed on it, nevertheless the United States and its allies launched a geoeconomics assault against Russia after the annexation of the Crimea. Russia was prepared for these economic sanctions and could effectively reduce the negative effects on its oil export, which could even increase after the western sanctions. North Korea is under UN sanctions since 2006 because of its nuclear program. The sanctions refer to oil and oil products as well, but has no significant effect on world oil market and oil price, because North Korea is a relatively small country with low oil consumption.North Korea is suffering a huge economic burden due to severe restrictions and its only way to circumvent the embargo – according to American accusations – is to smuggle some oil from China and Russia.

Energy is one of the key tools of Russian geopolitical advocacy that Russia can still use efficiently through the energy supply systems built up after WWII and that is still unavoidable. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the advocacy role of the Russian state has decreased however it has never completely lost its influence on the energy sector and thereby on the countries depending on it. We can speak about the active use of energy relations as a tool of political advocacy again since 2006, nonetheless we cannot observe a complete lack of use of these tools between 1990 and 2006 either. The former Soviet republics and the former satellite countries were the targets of these actions, which illustrates the long-term effects of energy dependency systems developed between 1945 and 1990. The 2006 Russian-Ukrainian conflict was the first, when Russia did not only threaten with but actually reduced the amount of natural gas transported. During the 2006 and the 2009 Russian-Ukrainian conflicts, it became clear that Russia actually uses limitation of supply and price policy pressure and not only as a means of threat in order to enforce its political interests, even accepting its negative consequences.

Ukraine's division today is mostly a consequence of its peripheral status: throughout the course of history the Ukrainians should (have) achieve(d) independence and the establishment of a sovereign state in the political vacuum that developed due to the rivalry of the neighboring great powers. In the East-European region Ukraine did have a state several times for a short period and in a much debated way, but it only gained complete sovereignity in 1991, while Russia had considered Ukraine, which "voluntarily joined" the empire in 1654, part of the Russian state. What has also contributed to Ukraine's division and the belated establishment of a state was that it did not have a unified national identity: in East- and Central Ukraine, which were continuously under Russian rule from the middle of the 17th century, a strong national movement could never develop. Then, following the partition of Poland, when West-Ukraine – with the exception of Galicia – became part of Russia, most of the Ukrainian territories belonged to – but did not comprise – one state. In Galicia, which was the western border of the eastern Slavic territories and was under the considerably liberal rule of Austria, and was called "the Ukrainian Piedmont", a stronger national self-consciousness developed after 1772. That is why it was there that the idea of a unified Ukrainian state was conceived first, the realization of which, however, took more than a hundred years, because of the division and weak national consciousness of the Ukrainians.

The Hungarian railway network with the latest and most advanced in the XIX–XX. at the turn of the century. The railway network plays a crucial role not only within the country's borders, but the whole of Europe. The nationalities wanted to create their own state in the Austro - Hungarian monarchy. The Entente validate their own political and economic interests of the Páruzsi peace talks, was used for the national aspirations. The world changes strengthened the political aspirations of the Entente. The strategic interests also justify their decisions. Soviet Russia and the European labor movement organization of great danger to the Entente countries. Politicians of the Entente countries have developed the boundaries of the Central European countries, on the basis of these two reasons. They split up the single railway network in small units. Austria wants now to standardize the components, according to their own interests. Hungary can not promote their own interests in the field of European rail services.

Hungary is an extremely poor state in terms of energy resources; the energy policy of the country and the structure of energy resources used have been and are determined by the energy import dependence. After WWII, it could obtain its increased demand necessary to its extensive energyintensive industry established based on the Soviet model almost entirely from the Soviet Union. Hungary, just like other Central-European countries, tried to decrease its unilateral dependence on energy import linked to Russia through several measures in the past 25 years but these efforts achieved partial success only; the Russian energy import dependence of Hungary and of a large part of Central-Europe remained till the present days. The 'National Energy Strategy 2030' developed on the basis of the guideline, adopted in 2011, specified insurance of long-term sustainability, security and economic competitiveness as primary objective of the Hungarian energy policy. The Government intends to guarantee security of supply, to enforce environmental considerations and depending on the options of the country, to stand up for solving global problems through implementation of the strategy. The strategy intends to achieve the termination of the electricity import balance of the country until 2030 by this 'Nuclear-Coal-Green' scenario based on these three pillars.

During the Cold War, the Philippines was an indispensable US ally, and this was still basically the case at the turn of the 21st century. However, the inauguration of President Rodrigo Duterte in June 2016 heralded great changes for the international position of the Philippines: a shift towards China and Russia occurred, followed by the emergence of a more balanced foreign policy. The partnership with the US has changed, too: during the Obama administration, the relationship between the two countries became cooler, although the foundations of the alliance were never contested. In the wake of Donald Trump's assumption of office in January 2017, the alliance seems to have become as strong as before, and economic as well as security-military cooperation has continued. The author's aim is to analyze the Philippines' position in the US-led world order from 1945 to the present, as well as the foundations of the United States–Philippines special relationship. After that the main components of Duterte's "independent" foreign policy and the fundamental changes in the Philippines' foreign relations are presented. The analysis focuses on the causes of the conflict at the end of Barack Obama's presidency, followed by the improving partnership during the Trump era and the main geopolitical challenges the alliance has had to face. According to its conclusion the US–Philippines security cooperation will remain strong under Presidents Duterte and Trump due to strategic considerations, which indicate the military alliance is in the interests of both nations.

A 20. század második felének bipoláris hatalma struktúráját (Amerikai Egyesült Államok versus Szovjetunió) követően a 21.században a két hagyományos nagyhatalom mellett egy újabb globális geopolitikai és geoökonómiai nagyhatalom is megjelent Kína gazdasági és katonai előtörésével. Az Amerikai Egyesült Államok vezető szerepe ugyanakkor (egyelőre) megkérdőjelezhetetlen, de Kína gazdaságilag tíz éven belül beérheti, Oroszország ásványkincs vagyona (földgáz, kőolaj) pedig függőségét jelent számos gazdasági hatalom számára. A három globális geopolitikai hatalom egymás közötti, bilaterális gazdasági és kereskedelmi kapcsolatai az elmúlt évtizedben nagyon heterogén módon alakultak: az amerikai-orosz relációban lineárisan csökkenő, az amerikai-kínai relációban jelentősen növekvő, majd a kereskedelmi háborúnak köszönhetően (talán átmenetileg) megtorpanó és csökkenő, az orosz-kínai relációban pedig folyamatosan növekvő trend figyelhető meg az elmúlt évtizedben. Az Oroszország által életre hívott gazdasági és kereskedelmi kezdeményezés a Szovjetunió felbomlását követő integrációs törekvések folytatása, az Eurázsiai Gazdasági Unió az elmúlt öt évben sikereket tud felmutatni, azonban már rövid távon is jelentős kihívásokkal néz szembe és kérdéses a további fejlődése. Előre tekintve új globális kockázati tényezők jelentek meg, melyek közül a legaktuálisabb és legnagyobb hatású a koronavírus járvány világszintű megjelenése és elterjedése. A globális szereplők egészségügyi és gazdasági járvány adott válasz lépései mind sebességet, mind mélységet tekintve heterogén képet mutatnak. Kérdés, hogy a jelenleg még mélyülő globális gazdasági válság a nemzetállamok szerepét fogja-e felerősíteni vagy új szövetségek jönnek létre a világban. Izgalmas, fordulatokkal teli évek következnek a globális geopolitikai színtéren, ahol a status quo megváltozása várható, új hatalmi központok jöhetnek létre, régi szövetségi rendszerek szűnhetnek meg illetve újak alakulhatnak ki, melyek a jelenlegi tripoláris világrendet alapjaiban változtathatják meg. Following the structure of bipolar power in the second half of the 20th century (United States versus the Soviet Union), in the 21st century, in addition to the two traditional superpowers, another global geopolitical and geoeconomic superpower emerged with the economic and military outbreak of China. At the same time, the leadership of the United States of America (for the time being) is unquestionable, but China can reach the nominal GDP of the US within ten years and still many economic powers depend on Russia's mineral wealth (natural gas, oil). Bilateral economic and trade relations between the three global geopolitical powers have evolved in a very heterogeneous manner over the last decade: linearly declining in the US-Russian relationship, significantly increasing in the US-China relationship, and then (possibly temporarily) due to the trade war stagnant and declining, and the Russian-Chinese relationship has been steadily increasing over the last decade. The economic and trade initiative launched by Russia is a continuation of the integration efforts following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and the Eurasian Economic Union has been successful over the last five years, but it faces significant challenges in the short term and its further development is questionable. Looking ahead, new global risk factors have emerged, the most relevant and influential of which is the global emergence and spread of the coronavirus epidemic. The response of global actors to the health and economic epidemic shows a heterogeneous picture in terms of both speed and depth. The question is whether the global economic crisis, which is currently deepening, will strengthen the role of nation-states or create new alliances in the world. Exciting, turbulent years will follow on the global geopolitical scene, where the status quo is expected to change, new centers of power may emerge, old federal systems may disband, and new ones may be formed that can fundamentally change the current tripolar world order.