Moldova: Military Confrontation with Russian Forces

2019 ◽  
pp. 103-136
Author(s):  
Marinko Bobić
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Necessary Condition ◽  
Window Of Opportunity ◽  
Asymmetric Conflict ◽  
Territorial Control ◽  
Common Identity ◽  
Sphere Of Influence

Chapter five focuses on the asymmetric conflict between Moldova and the Russian forces which supported separatists in Transnistria. The purpose was to uncover why Mircea Snegur’s Moldovan regime seemed unyielding to Russian demands, which resulted in armed conflict. The underlying argument is primarily based on the necessary condition, namely that Chisinau had a domestic crisis that needed immediate attention. Moldova was trying to claim its sovereignty, where an important step entailed establishing a common identity and territorial control. While Snegur’s presidency was stable and popular, it was dependent on nationalists’ support. Such dependency required policies that marginalised minorities and fuelled conflict with Russia, which wanted to retain Moldova within its sphere of influence. However, having perceived numerous crises unfolding in the late Soviet Union and emerging Russia, Snegur made a calculatable gamble that Russia would not be able to commit to a conflict. In other words, Snegur perceived a window of opportunity. The gamble failed, however. Nonetheless, with a counter-factual assessment, these findings are further strengthened.

scholarly journals The Position of the European Union in Georgian War

2019 ◽  
pp. 77-91
Author(s):  
Olena Skrypnyk
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
The European Union ◽  
South Caucasus ◽  
Technical Problems ◽  
Implementation Phase ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Military Support ◽  
The Eu

In the article explores the reasons for the military conflict in Georgia in August 2008, which arose with the collapse of the Soviet Union and Georgia’s proclamation of independence. As result of the armed conflict between 1992 and 1993, Georgia actually lost control of two regions – Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which de facto were independent under the Russian military support. The position of the European Union regarding this conflict was analyzed, which from the beginning of the Russo-Georgian armed conflict, made significant diplomatic efforts for its speedy settlement. In particular, France has developed six points for a peaceful settlement of the conflict. It was clarified what kind of assistance the EU provided in the termination of Russian-Georgian war. The activity of the EU Monitoring Mission (EUMM) in Georgia has been analyzed, which started its work on October 1, 2008 and is currently in operation. The EUMM is unique among the missions under the overall European Union security and defense policy, she does not provide counseling, does not conduct training or training, she only observing and reporting on the situation in Georgia to allow EU member states to develop a policy towards Georgia. It was concluded that thanks to the creation of the EU Monitoring Mission in Georgia, the EU’s weight in resolving the conflict in Georgia has increased significantly. Despite some technical problems in the initial implementation phase, the Mission is a success for the EU’s Common Security and Defenсe Policy. The Mission continues to make an important contribution to stabilizing the conflict situation in the region, especially after the termination of the OSCE and UN Mission in Georgia. Noted that during the Russo-Georgian War in August 2008, the European Union has developed its own strategy for settling conflicts in the South Caucasus.

4. Race for the H-bomb

2020 ◽  
pp. 39-59
Author(s):  
Joseph M. Siracusa
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
National Character ◽  
The Political ◽  
Window Of Opportunity ◽  
Worst Case ◽  
Atomic Weapons ◽  
Hydrogen Bomb ◽  
Human Control ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Atomic Weapon

America’s monopoly on atomic weapons was shorter than expected. ‘Race for the H-bomb’ details the development of the hydrogen bomb and the political developments surrounding it. The Soviet Union developed an atomic weapon faster than worst-case scenarios had predicted. Stalin appeared at first to dismiss the bomb, but it is likely that his understanding was more nuanced. What else could America have done with their short window of opportunity? Some argued for preventive war, but this went against the national character. The development of the hydrogen bomb took war out of the realms of logic and human control altogether, and anti-nuclear movements began to gather force in the 1950s.

Bargaining under polarization: The case of the Colombian armed conflict

2020 ◽  
Vol 57 (4) ◽  
pp. 551-563
Author(s):  
Sigifredo Laengle ◽  
Gino Loyola ◽  
David Tobón-Orozco
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Analytical Approach ◽  
Internal Conflict ◽  
Necessary Condition ◽  
Military Strategy ◽  
Negative Externalities ◽  
Complex Dynamic ◽  
Bargaining Process ◽  
The Government ◽  
Made In

A bargaining framework and a measure of conflict polarization are developed from two elements: (i) hatred-based negative externalities experienced by the parties to the conflict, and (ii) penalties the parties impose on their delegated negotiators when concessions are made in the bargaining process. The framework establishes agreement and disagreement regions and it is shown that a necessary condition for a negotiated solution is the adoption of a dual policy that combines dissociative political and military strategies. This analytical approach is applied first to polarized conflicts generally and then to the specific case of the internal conflict in Colombia between that country’s government and the FARC guerrilla group. The model provides a rationale for the complex dynamic of Colombia’s current peace process, which has involved a preliminary agreement and its subsequent rejection in a national referendum. Our analysis highlights the successful dissociative political-military strategy followed by the negotiators that enabled them to reach the agreement and the negotiators’ underestimation of the hatred levels that led the majority of the Colombian society represented in the referendum to vote the agreement down because they considered the concessions made by the government too generous to be acceptable.

Why Minor Powers Risk Wars with Major Powers

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marinko Bobić
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Comparative Analysis ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
Window Of Opportunity ◽  
Major Power ◽  
Power Politics ◽  
Asymmetric Conflict ◽  
Mixed Methods Approach ◽  
Major Powers ◽  
Regime Stability ◽  
Minor Powers

Major powers have immense resources at their disposal, while minor powers are assumed to avoid wars and power politics due to structural and material constraints. This provokes the question why do some minor powers nonetheless decide to militarily engage their vastly stronger opponents, particularly major powers? Inspired by several theoretical insights, this book proposes a more complex framework of minor powers in interstate asymmetric conflict. It analyses five conditions highlighted by previous studies: domestic crisis, foreign support, window of opportunity, anomalous beliefs, and regime stability. The theoretical framework works well with a mixed-methods approach, a medium-N research design (Qualitative Comparative Analysis), and three case studies: Iraq (1990), Moldova (1992), and Serbia (1999). The book finds that by looking through the lenses of multiple theories, one can observe a more nuanced relationship how different conditions interact in impacting minor powers’ decisions. Ultimately, minor powers militarily engage major powers when facing a more important domestic crisis and when they also believe that they have a window of opportunity or support from another major power in order to constrain major powers’ capability and resolve. Looking at the current conflict in Syria, there are important policy implications given the observation that minor powers do and will continue to challenge major powers in the future.

Hungarian Writers and the 1956 Revolution

1972 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. 498-504
Author(s):  
Alex Nagy
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Armed Conflict

Journalists and writers helped create atmosphere in Hungary which later exploded into armed conflict with Soviet Union

scholarly journals The Imperative to Explore the Impact of Disarmament on Peacemaking Efforts and Conflict Recurrence

2016 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 347-356 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jamie Levin ◽  
Dan Miodownik
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Civil Conflict ◽  
Necessary Condition ◽  
Internal Armed Conflict ◽  
Un Peacekeeping ◽  
Conflict Termination ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Durable Peace

AbstractThere is today a well-established consensus that belligerents must be disarmed in order to reconstruct shattered states and establish a robust and durable peace in the wake of internal armed conflict. Indeed, nearly every UN peacekeeping intervention since the end of the Cold War has included disarmament provisions in its mandate. Disarmament is guided by the arrestingly simple premise that weapons cause conflict and, therefore, must be eradicated for a civil conflict to end. If the means by which combatants fight are eliminated, it is thought, actors will have little choice but to commit to peace. Disarmament is, therefore, considered a necessary condition for establishing the lasting conditions for peace. To date, however, no systematic quantitative analysis has been undertaken of the practice of disarmament and the causal mechanisms remain underspecified. This paper is a preliminary attempt to fill that gap. In it we outline a series of hypotheses with which to run future statistical analyses on the effects of disarmament programs. The success of negotiations and the durability of peace are, perhaps, the single most salient issues concerning those engaged in conflict termination efforts. We therefore focus the bulk of this paper on a review of the supposed effects of disarmament on negotiating outcomes and war recurrence.

The Iranian Crisis of 1945–1946 and the Spiral Model of International Conflict

1989 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 307-326 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fred H. Lawson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
Northern Iran ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Red Army ◽  
The Government ◽  
Sphere Of Influence ◽  
Spiral Model ◽  
The Cold War

Diplomatic historians of all persuasions agree that the Iranian Crisis of 1945–1946 played a considerable part in initiating the Cold War. For revisionist writers, the confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union that took place during these months resulted from American efforts to carve out a sphere of influence in the oil-producing areas of the Middle East. By the autumn of 1945, according to this view, U.S. firms had gained controlling interests in the consortia holding exclusive rights to work the extensive petroleum deposits located in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain; more importantly, Iranian officials were making repeated overtures to American concerns in an effort to counterbalance established British interests with more dynamic ones based in the United States. When the Red Army prevented the government in Tehran from suppressing separatist movements in Azerbaijan and Kurdistan in December 1945, the Truman Administration manipulated the Security Council of the United Nations into mandating a Soviet withdrawal from northern Iran.

scholarly journals Post-Soviet Heritages in the Making

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 1080-1088
Author(s):  
Gertjan Plets
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Memory Studies ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The World ◽  
Special Collection ◽  
Soviet Space ◽  
Sphere Of Influence ◽  
Made In ◽  
Post Soviet Space

Despite the growing interest in post-Soviet space (the countries formerly located in the Soviet Union or its sphere of influence) in the field of memory studies, researchers have only just begun to the study how ‘things and practices’ from the past are mobilized, institutionalized and repackaged in this particular part of the world. This special collection explores how heritage is being made in a highly diverse and multicultural space where Soviet modernist conceptions of culture and identity interact with local deeply rooted attitudes as well as post-Soviet economic and political challenges.

scholarly journals Social Movements for Democracy in Post-Communist space: two Revolutions in Czechoslovakia (1968, 1989)

2021 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 5-26
Author(s):  
Olena Babinova
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Military Leadership ◽  
Necessary Condition ◽  
Main Question ◽  
Popular Resistance ◽  
Common Features ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The Military ◽  
The Revolution

This article is a comparative analysis of two revolutions in Czechoslovakia in 1968 and 1989. The main question of this article is: Why did the revolution in 1968 fail, but the revolution in 1989 succeed? In this article the main reasons, common features and differences of those two revolutions were analysed and defined. The main conclusion of this article is the fact that a necessary condition for the victory of popular resistance is the support of these manifestations by the military or their non-interference. The 1968 revolution was suppressed as a result of the invasion of the Warsaw Pact troops under the leadership of the Soviet Union, but the events of 1989 were marked by a decision by the country’s military leadership on their neutrality.

Russia and Belarus: Economic Linkage in a Patron-Client Relationship

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-26
Author(s):  
Randall Newnham
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Former Soviet Union ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
Vital Role ◽  
Russian Market ◽  
Sphere Of Influence ◽  
Political Economic ◽  
Near Abroad ◽  
Client Relations

Abstract President Putin has embarked on a program of restoring Russia to world-power status. A key facet of his effort has been to establish a sphere of influence in the ‘Near Abroad,’ the countries of the former Soviet Union. While the world has focused on the dramatic events in Ukraine since 2013, much less attention has been paid to the vital role of Belarus in Putin’s plans. Belarus has long had closer relations with Russia than any other former Soviet state, dating back to the Yeltsin years. This paper will show that Russia has devoted considerable resources to Belarus, showering the country with a variety of economic inducements, including access to the Russian market, subsidized oil and gas, and outright grants and loans. In return, Belarus has tightened its political, economic, and military ties to Moscow. Yet, surprisingly, Belarus also has some bargaining power in this relationship. Its quixotic leader, Alexander Lukashenko, is well aware of his importance to the Kremlin, and uses it to gain even greater economic rewards – thus cementing his own power. This case thus can make an valuable contribution to extending the literature on patron-client relations in International Relations, showing that a client can stand up to its patron in certain circumstances.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document