Suchergebnisse

The relations with Russia rank among the most important and most complex issues in the US and UK foreign policy. The years after the Second World War have been marked by an exhausting arms race between the Western and Eastern bloc that ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall, the break-up of the Soviet Union and the victory of the United States and its Western allies. The purpose of this paper is to analyse the relations between the US and the United Kingdom on the one hand, and Russia, on the other, during the mandate of President Trump and after Brexit and point to possible directions that these relations may take in the aftermath of Biden's victory in the 2020 US Presidential elections. The author proceeds from a hypothesis that the efforts of President Trump, who, contrary to his predecessors, felt that the relations with Russia should be based on interests rather than ideology, have failed. He has not been successful primarily due to the huge resistance mounted by the state structures, mainstream media and anti-Russian coalition forged by the Republican and Democratic parties. The relations between the UK and Russia remain cold after Brexit as well due to the severe problems between the two countries. The first part will deal with the strained relations between the United States and Russia following the West's victory in the Cold War, the efforts of President Trump to improve these relations and his failure to do so. The second part of the paper will address the relationship between the United Kingdom and Russia, which is in many respects even more complicated than that between Russia and the US. After Brexit, the relations between the two countries continue to be plagued by the activities of the Russian agents in Great Britain, the crisis in Ukraine and different views on the war in Syria. In the third part, the concluding part of the paper, the author tried to answer the question of how the relations between the US and Russia will develop after Joseph Biden won the 2020 US Presidential elections. According to him, the new President will continue to pursue the traditional policy towards Russia agreed upon by both US parties. It can be expected that Biden will, despite the policy of sanctions pursued by his predecessors, Obama and Trump, engage more in supporting the opposition and civilian sector in Russia. Given the cold and strained relations between these two states, it may be assumed that Great Britain will readily follow a new, tougher course of action pursued by President Biden towards Russia and Putin. It is especially important for UK politics that Biden returns to the ideas of liberalism because, as we have seen on previous pages, in London, in addition to the actions of Russian agents on the UK territory, Putin is most resented precisely for his activities to overthrow the ruling liberal order. Despite the good ties between Prime Minister Johnson and the former US President who supported Brexit, Biden's victory will bring relief to the UK because of his commitment, as opposed to Trump, to bring back America to the world political stage, where London is likely to expect to find space for its new global role after leaving the EU. On the other hand, Moscow will probably continue with its past foreign policy strategy in anticipation of the moves to be taken by the new US President without high expectations regarding the future relations between the two countries. Russia has even fewer expectations when it comes to relations with the UK, given the gravity of the problems that burden the relations between the two countries.

After the cold war, when the Eastern block collapsed, considerable changes were made in the world security architecture. Althought it seemed like a beginning of more certain and secure era, cold war ending didn't fulfill expectations neither the main actors in the cold war conflict, nor the expectations of the rest of the world. Besides, collapse of one block, didn't stop growth dynamic of new power centers. Tendencies for power are not new and unfamiliar to human. When bypolar system collapsed, other subjects started fighting for the positions. PRC role with her enormous people potential, growing economy and strengthened military is evident. Soviet Union, accordingly Russian Federation, believed that there was no more need for strenghtening the other block, especially when the opposite doesn't exist. But, former partners included the opposite side, and that made more tensions between Russia and United States. Rest of the world didn't get better chance to create own future. On the contrary, especially for the peripheral and semiperipheral countries, new threats appeared that destabilized individual and collective security. Efforts to make human community rational, were always idealism and those efforts were considered utopian, but under the given circumstances, for the international stability, the most accseptable model is model of global triangle - China, Russia, USA. Reason why this three countries is ther specific potention: USA is powerful technological, military and political center, RF is worlds warehouse' and China is the worlds manufacture. In the globalism domination over nationalism era that model could be the optimal 'braking and balance' system in the international relations- political ideal that all liberal schools wanted to acchievestarting Lock, Montesquieu, Rousseau till today.

In this paper the authors examine the dynamics of security relations of the three key security actors in the Euro-Atlantic area - NATO, Russia, and the European Union. Based on their findings, and using a comparative analysis of the actors' doctrinal and strategic documents, as well as their observations of contemporary challenges, risks and threats, the authors discuss if, and to what extent, their productive security cooperation is possible, or their positions are opposed in such a way that in short and medium terms only disputes or less or more open conflicts are likely to be expected between them. This leads to a conclusion that a majority of recognized security challenges, risks and threats are shared, as well as that these actors see each other not only as competitors but also as partners in the struggle against those challenges, risks and threats, which opens possibilities of security cooperation.

Докторска дисертација «Русија на почетку XXI века – геополитичка анализа» је рад који се састоји из шест делова. У првом делу «Теоретско – методолошки увод» је постављена методолошко појмовна основа рада, извршен преглед досадашњих истраживања на ову тему и сабрани и анализирани потребни извори и литература. Други део «Физичко – географске одлике територије данашње Русије» се бави анализом и вредновањем рељефа и педолошког покривача, климе, хидрографског потенцијала, биљног и животињског света, те рудног и енергетског блага на подручју савремене Русије. Док су први и други део рада квантитативно невелики (слично петом и шестом делу), трећи и четврти део обухватају највећи део дисертације. Трећи део «Историјска анализа геополитичке позиције Русије» се бави територијалним развојем руске државе кроз историју, при чему су анализирани и остали геополитички значајни фактори генезе њеног историјског положаја. Посебно је посматран утицај који су на Русију кроз историју имали континенти на којима се распростире, а извршена је и анализа билатералних историјских односа са најзначајнијим суседима и светским силама, где су уочене и извесне геополитичке правилности (по историчару Броделу то би биле историјске појаве «средњег» и «дугог трајања»). Четврти део «Геополитичка позиција савремене Русије» анализира данашњу Русију са унутрашње и међународне позиције. У оквиру унутрашње позиције се анализира економија, демографија, социолошка структура, култура и унутрашњо – политичка позиција савремене руске државе. У односу на окружење се анализира укупна позиција Русије у свету и посебно у односу на суседе и поједине важне државе (са свим државама Европе и Азије и са најважнијим силама на другим континентима). Пети део «Перспективе Русије у следећим деценијама XXI века» садржи основне елементе предвиђања унутрашњег развоја земље, као и њену позицију у светским токовима. Шести део је прегледни «Закључак». ; Doktorska disertacija «Rusija na početku XXI veka – geopolitička analiza» je rad koji se sastoji iz šest delova. U prvom delu «Teoretsko – metodološki uvod» je postavljena metodološko pojmovna osnova rada, izvršen pregled dosadašnjih istraživanja na ovu temu i sabrani i analizirani potrebni izvori i literatura. Drugi deo «Fizičko – geografske odlike teritorije današnje Rusije» se bavi analizom i vrednovanjem reljefa i pedološkog pokrivača, klime, hidrografskog potencijala, biljnog i životinjskog sveta, te rudnog i energetskog blaga na području savremene Rusije. Dok su prvi i drugi deo rada kvantitativno neveliki (slično petom i šestom delu), treći i četvrti deo obuhvataju najveći deo disertacije. Treći deo «Istorijska analiza geopolitičke pozicije Rusije» se bavi teritorijalnim razvojem ruske države kroz istoriju, pri čemu su analizirani i ostali geopolitički značajni faktori geneze njenog istorijskog položaja. Posebno je posmatran uticaj koji su na Rusiju kroz istoriju imali kontinenti na kojima se rasprostire, a izvršena je i analiza bilateralnih istorijskih odnosa sa najznačajnijim susedima i svetskim silama, gde su uočene i izvesne geopolitičke pravilnosti (po istoričaru Brodelu to bi bile istorijske pojave «srednjeg» i «dugog trajanja»). Četvrti deo «Geopolitička pozicija savremene Rusije» analizira današnju Rusiju sa unutrašnje i međunarodne pozicije. U okviru unutrašnje pozicije se analizira ekonomija, demografija, sociološka struktura, kultura i unutrašnjo – politička pozicija savremene ruske države. U odnosu na okruženje se analizira ukupna pozicija Rusije u svetu i posebno u odnosu na susede i pojedine važne države (sa svim državama Evrope i Azije i sa najvažnijim silama na drugim kontinentima). Peti deo «Perspektive Rusije u sledećim decenijama XXI veka» sadrži osnovne elemente predviđanja unutrašnjeg razvoja zemlje, kao i njenu poziciju u svetskim tokovima. Šesti deo je pregledni «Zaključak». ; The doctor dissertation named "Russia in the beginning of the 21th century – geopolitical analyses" is the work which is consisting of the six parts. In the first part "Theoretical methodological introduction" is a setup of the methodologicaly conceptual basis of this work and noticed previous researches of this subject matter and summarized and analyzed the resources and literature. The second part of the work "Phiysical and geographical attributes of the nowdays Russian territory" engages in analyzing and valuing relief and soil cover, climate , hidrographycal potential, wildlife, mineral and energy resources of nowdays Russia. While the first and the second part of this work quantitative are a small (alike the fifth and the sixth parts of the work ) the third and the fourt parts borders is the largest part of dissertation . The third part of the work "An historical analyses geopolitical positions of Russia" engages in territorial development of the Russian Government trough its history whereat are analyzed another geopolitically important factors of genesis its historical position. Especially is observed influence to Russia by continents of its broadcasting and noticed some analyses of the bilateral historical attitudes to the most important neighbourhood and other major world powers , where is noticed some geopolitically regularities (accordin to a famous historian Brodel there are a historical apparations named a period of medium-sized duration and a period of long- sized duration) . The fourth part of the dissertation "Geopolitical position of modern Russia" analyzes nowdays Russia in domestic policy and international context .Within interior position is analysing economy, demography, social structures, culture, and domestic policy position of modern Russia. Concerning to surroundings is analysing position of Russia in wholle especially concerning to the neighbourhood and some important countries ( and all countries of Europe, Asia, and the most important powers of other continents). The fifth part "Perspective of Russia in the next decades of the 21 th century" conteins a basic elements of the anticipations of internal development and Russia's position in the world. The sixth part is a previewed "Epilogue".

The deployment of NATO missile defense shield (EuroPRO) elements in Eastern Europe determines explicitly the so-called strong security of Russia and it represents a serious disruptive factor in its relations with the West. In such context, in the last three years the Ukrainian crisis has additionally complicated and actualized security situation because it turned out that, besides internal factors, it is largely influenced by some external factors, as well. In March 2014 Crimea unilaterally separated from Ukraine and it was joined to Russia whereas an armed conflict between central authorities and armed formations of rebellious pro-Russian population started in the parts of Donetsk and Luhansk. Ukraine accused Russia of the annexation of Crimea; their relations were reduced to minimum and in the last three years they have remained such tendency. The change of Crimean status has largely aggravated the relations of Russia with Western countries, which resulted in complex political and security situation in the Black Sea Region, which threatens to disintegrate the whole system of regional stability with potential implications for global security, as well. The deployment of EuroPRO elements in Romania and militarization of the Crimean Peninsula affect to a great extent regional stability of that part of the old continent and they represent one of essential destabilizing factors that is in direct correlation with a high level of entropy of the European political and security system.

The war in Kosovo and Metohia was the result of a decade long tensions between ethnic Serbs and Albanians. It was led from the air in order to avoid more potential victims in case of land invasion. The end of war was the result of mutual concessions: from NATO side and the Serbian one. The sovereignty of FRY was not put into question, but a great autonomy of Kosovo was predicted including the possibility of independence acquisition (secession). The Resolution 1244 was not abolished, but it was being derogated in order to prepare the fundament of Kosovo independence. Serbian military-security forces were withdrawn from the territory of Kosovo and Metohia. NATO intervention was not legal from the point of view of international law, but it subordinated sovereignty to human rights. Intervention was justified in cases of humanitarian need. Event though humanitarian need (catastrophe) is taken as the basis for the intervention, the example of such kind could not be found in the past. So, Kosovo cases were qualified as sui generis one. Thus, the war in Kosovo became an example to be followed in the future, and an unresolved situation may become the threat to the peace and security in the surrounding countries. Democratic countries give themselves the right to interfere and intervene into internal affairs of others differently from the autocratic ones, which was supposed to be neither correct nor consistent. Kosovo conflict and war rattled global power structure, especially with China and Russia as new challengers of the USA power. Both countries are trying hard to reach USA, but they are still in transition with unstable financial systems, migrations and unresolved system of social protection. Regarding Kosovo conflict and war, they engaged themselves rather indirectly than directly. As Security Council permanent members they were voting against the independence of Kosovo, but did not involve themselves into the war directly. Kosovo war showed how China is backward regarding war technique, and Russia regarding financial engagement. In addition, China expected membership in WTO, and Russia a great financial assistance. Russia engaged in negotiations via the Contact Group. With the arrival of Putin, Russia could not engage in Balkan more militarily but only commercially due to the fact most Balkan countries entered NATO or Partnership for Peace Programme. Internal cohesion of Russia with centralistic governance was reinforced, and ethnic tensions were calmed down. The perspective of Russia is United Nations and commerce through pipeline.

В работе анализируются процессы преобразования идентичности в межвоенное время в Советской России на примере мифологизации образа Василия Ивановича Чапаева, командира дивизии в Граждан- ской войне 1917–1923 гг. В начале рассматриваются основные этапы биографии Чапаева как реальной исторической личности, а также различные оценки его деятельности в трудах ведущих историков Граж- данской войны в России. Основная часть работы посвящена проблеме мифотворчества и мифологизации личности Чапаева, с помощью чего сторонники новой власти в Советской России пытались создать своеобразный противовес образу офицера как символу имперской власти. В статье прослеживается процесс отрыва образа Чапаева от контекста политической идеологии и его трансформации в практи- чески фольклорный анекдотич- ный персонаж как свидетельство профанации коммунистической идеологии. В конце анализирует- ся литературно-художественный образ Чапаева, связанный со всеми перечисленными мифологически- ми образами, но одновременно отличающийся от них. ; This paper analyzes the process of identity transformation of the interwar period in Soviet Russia on the example of mythologization of Vasily Ivanovich Chapaev, division commander in the Russian Civil War of 1917–1923. In the beginning of the work main stages of Chapaev's biography as a real historical figure are considered, as well as various assessments of his activity in the works of leading historians of Civil War in Russia. The main segment of this paper is devoted to the problem of myth creation and mythologization of Chapaev's personality, with the help of which supporters of the new government in Soviet Russia tried to create a kind of counterbalance to the figure of officer as a symbol of earlier imperial power. The article also traces the process of separation of Chapaev's figure from the context of political ideology, and its transformation into a practically folklore anecdotical hero as evidence of the profanation of communist ideology. In the conclusion of the article an artistic and literary figure of Chapaev, related to all above mentioned mythological figures, but simultaneously different from them, is analyzed.

Прихвативши понуду краља Александра Обреновића да образује владу Србије, Стојан Новаковић је, јула 1895. године, планирао да се посвети побољшању међународног положаја Србије и положаја српског народа у Старој Србији и Македонији. Рачунајући на помоћ Русије и на тешкоће које је Турска имала у решавањима јерменског и критског питања, Новаковић је настојао да од Порте изнуди просветне и верске привилегије за Србе у Старој Србији и Македонији. Немогућност бржег решавања финансијских и уставних питања, нестабилна политичка ситуација у Краљевини и аустроугарски утицаји довели су до пада Новаковићеве владе крајем 1896. године. Свака из угла својих интереса, Француска и Велика Британија пажљиво су пратиле и анализирале ситуацију у Србији и Новаковићев рад. ; Stojan Novaković's government (July 1895 – December 1896) faced numerous inherited problems. As a scholar, a diplomat and a politician, a man led by moral and scientific principles and national interests, Stojan Novaković was aware that he was taking reigns of a country which was not politically, economically nor militarily ready to make major stopes towards national liberation and unification. That is why he was resorting to negotiations in situation where he knew there would be no major achievements. He was resisting much more when he knew it made sense, and in situations in which he could not swallow national pride and ignore facts. British and, especially, French envoys to Belgrade knew that the reason for instability of Novaković's government was not in his undisputed political and intellectual capacities, but in international circumstances, internal political struggles, and in unpredictable characters of former King Milan and his son Aleksandar. Britain, who was protecting its interests from Russia in the Easter Mediterranean by supporting Austria-Hungary, and France who, in cooperation with Russia, tried to prevent major conflicts in the Balkans, did not take an active role in directing the policy of Kingdom of Serbia. London, with its sometimes harsh warnings, and Paris, with its advices, were managing to draw Belgrade's attention to the fact that, in spite of Armenian and Cretan question, and in spite of Albanian atrocities in Old Serbia and Macedonia, Serbia should not take any aggressive measures. ; Научни скупови / Српска академија наука и уметности ; књ. 172. Председништво ; књ. 11

The Paper observes the foundation and development of OSCE as the most important contemporary security organization from the perspective of historical and political dynamics and the interests of international subjects. Originally founded as Forum for the reduction of tensions between ideologically confronted East and West, OSCE (than: CSCE) has evolved into permanent security organization with diversified activities and jurisdictions. However, that evolution failed to be up to the new challenges, so the needs for further reforms of OSCE reemerged. Second part of the Paper follows the propositions of OSCE system reforms, made by its member states, by Panel (formed on Council of Ministers in Sofia, in December 2004) and by Russia that has even proposed 'Agreement of European security' as the basis for completely new remaking of European security out of the existing OSCE system. In the final part of the Paper, influences of contemporary political crises in OSCE member states on the possible reform of this security organization are being analyzed.

The new security paradigm of the modern world, created in 1990s, led to a security organization of a number of countries of the former Soviet bloc. Also evolving, at varying pace, was the contractual relationship of collective security, which, due to the escalation of activities of extremist groups on the territory of Central Asia, the deterioration of Russia-NATO relations, as well as the emergence of the US military bases in the region, resulted in a decision to form the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) in 2002. The basic declared purpose of the organization is a desire of the signatory countries to increase the effectiveness of their cooperation in the field of security. Established as a typical military alliance with characteristics of multifunctional organization for securing peace, CSTO aspires to the role of a regional leading organization in the field of security cooperation, with many open questions concerning its functioning and future development. Whether the new security organization raises the level of collective security of its associate member countries, and whether the said organization contributes to the security of the region and the world, only time ahead will tell.

The authors of this paper offer an overview and analysis of the rise and fall of‎ the liberal international order that emerged after the end of the Cold War and‎ along with the rising power of the United States. The foreign policy agenda‎ of the post-Cold War sole superpower was guided by the idea of creating a‎ global order based on the ideology of liberalism, which incorporates theories‎ of liberal peace, democratic peace and neoliberal institutionalism. The establishment‎ of a liberal order has been accompanied by numerous political, social,‎ economic and security crises. The current era is characterized by the rise‎ of the relative power of global actors, primarily China and Russia, as the main‎ challengers to the world domination of the United States, geopolitical revisionism‎ and ideological struggle around the world. The authors of this paper‎ use the dialectic of political mechanics as a method that relies on the teachings‎ of Friedrich Hegel on the dialectic of history and Carl Schmitt on the‎ phenomenon of the political. The authors advocate the view that the political‎ field "permanently pulsates", which, in everything that is social and political,‎ necessarily creates action and reaction.‎

Тематски Зборник Свакодневна култура у постсоцијалистичком периоду настао је као резултат научне сарадње Етнографског института САНУи Етнографског института и музеја БАН. Велике политичке и друштвене промене током деведесетих година 20.века озбиљно су се одразиле на свакодневну културу балканских земаља. Управо у периоду кризе, две суседне етнолошке установе, бугарска и српска, које више деценија током социјалисатичког периода нису сарађивале, отпочеле су заједнички рад на истраживању свакодневне културе. Зборник показује у ком правацу су се одвијали културни процеси у Србији и Бугарској, које су сличности и разлике међу њима, али и шта се дешава у постсоцијалистичком периоду у појединим сегментима свакодневне култура Словака, Руса и Македонаца. ; The Collection of Papers entitled ―Everyday Culture in post-socialist period is a result of collaboration between the Institute of Ethnography, Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, and the Institute of Ethnography and Museum, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. The enormous political and social changes during the 1990's influenced also everyday culture of the Balkans states. After decades of hinder, and precisely in the period of crisis, two neighboring ethnological institutions, the Bulgarian and Serbian, started to cooperate together in the study of everyday culture.The Collection of Papers demonstrates the directions of the cultural processes in Serbia and Bulgaria, accentuating the differences and similarities among the two states, and also explains the deeds within certain segments of everyday cultures of Slovaks, Russians and Macedonians. ; Зборник радова Етнографског института САНУ 22 / Collection of Papers of the Institute of Ethnography SASA 22

Shanghai Cooperation Organization was founded in 2001 under a Declaration signed by the leaders of five independent states from the territory of former Soviet Union and the President of the People's Republic of China. The Charter, adopted by the organization's member states as their basic document, emphasizes their commitment to strengthen their mutual trust and good-neighborliness and friendly cooperation; to keep and maintain the peace, stability and security of the region; as well as to fight together against all forms of terrorism, separatism and extremism. Although there are significant differences between the member states in almost all matters of social and governmental organization, over its ten-year existence the Shanghai Cooperation Organization has proved its vitality and has become respectable entity not only of the regional but also of international cooperation on the whole. In recent years all main actors of contemporary international relations have tried to establish and develop the cooperation with this important intergovernmental association. What the further development of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization will be like and where the organization will be positioned within the future world order is difficult to be definitely determined. Apart from the role of the two leading states of this organization - Russia and China, its eventual position will be greatly influenced by other major international factors as well, which, in the era of unstable energy and other forms of security, find the area of Central Asia ever more significant and attractive.

The governments of all countries of the world have faced up with the health crisis caused by the Covid 19 virus pandemic in the previous and current year. This crisis turned into an economic crisis, considering that it was necessary to provide huge financial resources to overcome it. Governments "pumped" additional amounts of money by supplying the economy and the population with new liquidity through subsidies and one-time assistance in the form of "helicopter money". This has contributed to the deterioration of the fiscal performance of the world economies. The paper analyzes the economic and fiscal performance of the world leading economies such as the European Union, the United States, China and Russia. The aim of this paper is to point out the consequences of the applied measures in the domain of monetary and fiscal policy and influence on the increase of the budget deficit and public debt in the world. ; Vlade svih država sveta suočile su se sa zdravstvenom krizom izazvanom pandemijom kovida-19 u prethodnoj i tekućoj godini. Ova kriza je prerasla u ekonomsku krizu, s obzirom na to da je za njeno prevazilaženje bilo neophodno obezbediti ogromna finansijska sredstva. Osim toga, vlade su "upumpavale" dodatne količine novca snabdevajući privredu i stanovništvo novom likvidnošću kroz subvencije i jednokratne pomoći u vidu "novca iz helikoptera".Sve ovo je doprinelo pogoršanju fiskalnih performansi ekonomija u svetu. U radu su analizirane ekonomske i fiskalne performanse vodećih ekonomija sveta poput Evropske unije, SAD, Kine i Rusije. Cilј rada je da ukaže na posledice primenjenih mera u domenu monetarne i fiskalne politike na rast budžetskog deficita i javnog duga u svetu.

In this article Dr Pribicevic analyses the impact of Kosovo crises on Serbian EU integrations and shaping of political scene of Serbia. Dr Pribicevic pointed out how crises started in spring 2011 when idea of split of Kosovo appeared again in Serbia and then continued with the clashes between KFOR and Serbs from north of Kosovo in order to get the control of administrative crossing Jarinje and Brnjak. During the summer 2011 German chancellor Merkel visited Serbia and asked government in Belgrade to normalize its relations with Kosovo and dissolve "parallel institutions" of Serbs in the north of Kosovo. Following this visit Serbian government continue its negotiations with Pristina and find out solutions for administrative crossings. On the other side, Belgrade and Pristina didn't find solution for the problem of presentation of Kosovo on the regional gatherings after what European council, under the German influence, decided to postpone the decision to give Serbia the status of candidate for the EU. Therefore, Serbia remains without EU candidaturein December 2011 in spite of the fact that government in Belgrade handedover general Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic to Hague Tribunal as well as conducted a number of successful reforms which got very high marks from EU commission. In this article Dr Pribicevic is trying to answer several questions. Why Washington and Berlin imposed such a strong pressure on Serbia in this moment? Is split of Kosovo possible solution? Could Serbian government continue with current politics of EU and Kosovo or it should take one of these politics as a priority? How Kosovo crises influenced Serbian political scene? At the end, Kosovo crises opened the crucial question: could Serbia enter EU without "recognition of territorial integrity of Kosovo"as described by German foreign minister Westervele. Having in mind forthcoming elections in spring time 2012 author thinks that ruling Democratic Party as well as leading opposition party Sebian Progresive Party will continue with current politics "both EU and Kosovo". Such politics will be in accordance with the public mood in Serbia which shows that support for EU integrations is declining with the growing pressure of US and Germany on Serbian Kosovo's politics. On the other side, Serbian politics "both EU and Kosovo" is not sustainable on the long run and Serbia has to face difficult decisions in future. Also, according to the author opinion Kosovo crises showed weakness of Serbian international position. It is without important allies among key Western powers which has dominant influence in this part of Europe. Serbia has support of Russia but key influence on Kosovo has US, GB, France and Germany. These powers connected Serbia's further progress towards EU with normalization its relations with Kosovo, knowing in advance that the time when Serbia is seeking for the EU candidature is the best time to ask Belgrade to make concessions in its Kosovo's politics. Western powers do not expect Serbia to recognize Kosovo but they expect Serbia to accept " territorial integrity of Kosovo", including its north part. Why Kosovo become so important for leading Western powers? Author thinks that several reasons influenced such tough behavior of Western power towards Serbia. First, after helping them to create an independent state, US perceived Albanians as the most reliable ally in this part of Europe. Second, Germany and other big powers in Europe wants to prevent creation of new frozen conflict in Europe similar to Cyprus one, Third, all big Western powers has reserves towards Serbian foreign policy and its orientation on EU but as well as on Russia, nonalignment world, China which quite often is described in the West as sitting on the two chairs, Last but not the least, Germany as well as France is not very eager of politics of enlargement of EU in the eve of forthcoming elections in these countries scheduled for 2012 and 2013. Therefore its hesitation in this moment towards further enlargement with US pro Albanian politics creates tough dillemas for Serbian politics in foreseeable future.