scholarly journals Military and Political Integration of the Scandinavian Countries in the European Security Architecture after the Second World War

Author(s):  
Valerii Pavlenko

The Article examines the military and political integration of Scandinavia in the European security architecture after 1945 and analyzes the historical experience of the countries of the North Europe in the late 1940s-1960s in the security space issues. Particular attention is paid to the close link between the military and political rapprochement with the processes of the economic, technological and political integration in the Western European region. It is emphasized that the economic basis of common interests encourages the EU member states all the time to seek peaceful means to resolve possible disputes. Considerable attention is paid to the analysis of alternative approaches to the European security that the North European countries have used in their foreign policy. The role and place of these countries in the sphere of the European security during the late 1940s-1960s was determined. The influence of the USA and the USSR on the formation of the foreign policy of the Scandinavian countries, especially the pressure of the Soviet Union on Finland in its attempts to get a neutral state status, has been shown. The reasons for the failure to implement the military and political cooperation projects in the form of the Scandinavian Defense Alliance have been revealed.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Н.Ф. Бугай

В статье на основе исследований российских ученых, архивных документов, воспоминаний рассматривается слабо изученная в отечественной историографии проблема участия представителей этнических меньшинств в битвах за Кавказ и Крым в ходе Великой Отечественной войны. В качестве примера автором избраны этнические общности курдов и корейцев. Использованы историко-генетический, историко-биографический и системно-исторический методы. Изучены меры советского командования по формированию национальных воинских подразделений; реконструированы биографии героев войны – корейцев и курдов, участвовавших в освобождении Юга России и получивших боевые награды; прослежена их послевоенная судьба; рассмотрены репрессивные действия советского правительства по отношению к военнослужащим некоторых национальностей. Автор заключает, что представители разных народов СССР, столкнувшись с врагом, проявили стремление к единству и добровольное желание выступить на защиту государства, которое они избрали своей Родиной. The aim of the article is to reconstruct the biographies of participants in the Great Patriotic War (1941–1945), who belonged to ethnic minorities and fought for the liberation of the Caucasus and Crimea from Nazi invaders. As an example, the author selected ethnic communities of Kurds and Koreans. The study was conducted on the basis of research by Russian scholars, archival documents, and memoirs of direct participants in the events. The historical-genetic, historical-biographical and system-historical methods were used. The measures of the Soviet command for the formation of national military units were studied, the biographies of war heroes, Koreans and Kurds who participated in the liberation of the South of Russia and received military awards (including the title Hero of the Soviet Union) were reconstructed. The author describes in detail the military clashes during which these fighters showed military prowess, presents their photographs, and traces their further military path, post-war fate and forms of their memory perpetuation. Quotations from the war veterans’ front-line letters and their relatives’ memoirs are given. The repressive actions of the Soviet government towards the military personnel of certain nationalities, who after the demobilization received the status of “special settlers” and lost their military tickets and award sheets, are also considered. The author emphasizes that the fight against the enemy was a test of strength for the unity of the peoples living in the Caucasus and Crimea. Examples of civic solidarity in the fight against the enemy shown by ethnic minorities in the early days of the war (mass enrollment in volunteers, holding civil rallies) are given. It is noted that representatives of local ethnic communities became the basis of 12 military units that were at the forefront of the defenders of the Caucasus. The paradoxical nature of the situation in which USSR citizens were repressed for various (often far-fetched) reasons is stated; however, during the war they still heroically fought against Nazism with arms in their hands. The author connects the repressions against members of the ethnic minorities with the ethnosocial policy pursued by the Soviet state, as well as the spread of desertion and draft evasion in the North Caucasus and Crimea. It is concluded that representatives of ethnic minorities living in the USSR, faced with the enemy, showed a desire for unity and a voluntary desire to defend the state, which they chose as their homeland.


2015 ◽  
Vol 59 (12) ◽  
pp. 30-40
Author(s):  
V. Vasil'ev

The article investigates approaches taken by major political parties and civil society in the FRG toward the Transatlantic partnership. It reveals the tendencies of the prospective promotion of Berlin’s cooperation with Washington; the article also gives a forecast of further interaction between the EU and the USA, indicates the direction of discourse regarding the future Russia–Germany relations model in the context of the Ukrainian crisis and in reference to the increased transatlantic solidarity. Disputes in German socio-political circles on the issue of the FRG’s policy toward the U.S. are emerging all the time, but they have to be considered within a concrete historical and political context. Being of primary significance for all German chancellors, the Trans-Atlantic factor has been shaping itself in a controversial way as to the nation’s public opinion. This has been confirmed by many opinion polls, including the survey on the signing of the EU–U.S. Agreement on the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. Chancellor A. Merkel is playing an important role: she is either ascribed full compliancy with Washington, or is being tentatively shown as a consistent government figure in advancing and upholding of Germany's and the EU's interests. A. Merkel has implemented her peace-seeking drive in undoing the Ukrainian tangle by setting up the “Normandy format” involving the leaders of Germany, France, Russia and Ukraine while having cleared it through with the U.S. President B. Obama well in advance. Despite the increasing criticism of Washington’s policy among some part of Germans, for the majority of German voters, the USA remains a country of implementable hopes, the only power in the world possessing a high education level and the most advanced technologies. Americans, for their part, are confident of the important role that Berlin plays in world politics, particularly in what concerns the maintenance of unity within the EU. Berlin aims at further constructive interaction with the USA in the frame of NATO as well as within other Trans-Atlantic formats. Notwithstanding the steady tendency toward increasing of the Washington policy’s critical perception degree in German society, officially Berlin continues as Washington’s true ally, partner and friend. There is every reason to believe that after the 2017 Bundestag elections, the new (the former) Chancellor will have to face a modernized Trans-Atlantic partnership philosophy, with a paradigm also devised in the spirit of the bloc discipline and commitments to allies. The main concern for Berlin is not to lose its sovereign right of decision-making, including the one that deals with problems of European security and relations with Moscow. Regrettably, Germany is not putting forward any innovative ideas on aligning a new architecture of European security with Russia’s participation. Meanwhile, German scholars and experts are trying to work out a tentative algorithm of a gradual return to the West’s full-fledged dialogue with Russia, which, unfortunately, is qualified as an opponent by many politicians. Predictably, the Crimea issue will remain a long-lasting political irritant in relations between Russia and Germany. Although not every aspect of Berlin’s activation in its foreign policy finds support of the German public, and the outburst of anti-American feeling is obvious, experts believe that the government of the FRG is “merely taking stock of these phenomena and ignores them”. Evident is the gap between the government's line and the feeling of the German parties’ basis – the public. It is noteworthy that the FRG has not yet adopted the Law on Holding General Federal Referendums on key issues of the domestic and foreign policy. There is every indication to assume that the real causes of abandoning the nationwide referendums are the reluctance of the German ruling bureaucracy and even its apprehensions of the negative voting returns on sensitive problems, – such as basic documents and decisions of the EU, the export of German arms, relations with the U.S., etc. The harmony between Berlin’s "Realpolitik" and German public opinion is not yet discernible within the system of Trans-Atlantic axes.


Author(s):  
Peter Rutland ◽  
Gregory Dubinsky

This chapter examines U.S. foreign policy in Russia. The end of the Cold War lifted the threat of nuclear annihilation and transformed the international security landscape. The United States interpreted the collapse of the Soviet Union as evidence that it had ‘won’ the Cold War, and that its values and interests would prevail in the future world order. The chapter first provides an overview of the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 before discussing U.S.–Russian relations under Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin, respectively. It then turns to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and its enlargement, the Kosovo crisis, and the ‘Great Game’ in Eurasia. It also analyses the rise of Vladimir Putin as president of Russia and the deterioration of U.S.–Russian relations and concludes with an assessment of the cautious partnership between the two countries.


Author(s):  
Peter Rutland

This chapter examines US foreign policy in Russia. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 raised a number of questions that have profound implications for American foreign policy; for example, whether the Russian Federation, which inherited half the population and 70 per cent of the territory of the former Soviet Union, would become a friend and partner of the United States, a full and equal member of the community of democratic nations, or whether it would return to a hostile, expansionary communist or nationalist power. The chapter considers US–Russia relations at various times under Bill Clinton, Boris Yeltsin, George W. Bush, Vladimir Putin, Barack Obama, Dmitry Medvedev, and Donald Trump. It also discusses a host of issues affecting the US–Russia relations, including the enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the crisis in Kosovo and Ukraine, and the civil war in Syria.


Subject Russian foreign policy in 2016. Significance Russian foreign policy is driven by an amalgam of realpolitik, nationalism and anti-Western ideology, and consists of both defensive and offensive strategies. The robust, confrontational approach championed by President Vladimir Putin in recent years has produced successes in such areas as the military campaign in Syria, but an undecided outcome in Ukraine and mixed results in other parts of the former Soviet Union. Impacts A NATO summit this July may result in a tougher, more coordinated stance on Russia. Following its official partial withdrawal from Syria, the Russian military will conduct selective attacks. Russia will need careful diplomacy to keep Belarus and Kazakhstan from drifting away as allies.


Author(s):  
Maria Sergeyevna Khvan

The paper focuses on the analysis of Brazilian for-eign policy under Jair Bolsonaro since his inaugura-tion as president in January 2019 up to the present moment. This study examines Jair Bolsonaro’s per-sonality and the influence of Brazilian president’s certain character traits on foreign policy decisions. The author concludes that Jair Bolsonaro has won presidential election in autumn 2018 largely due to disenchantment of Brazilians with socially oriented public policy. Due to the fact that Jair Bolsonaro adheres to the right-wing radical views, thinks of himself as anti-globalist and advocates the devel-opment of bilateral relations at the expense of multi-lateral ones, even before he came to power re-searchers and political experts had predicted Brazil’s rapprochement with the USA, Italy and Israel, a cold snap in bilateral relations with China, a coming rup-ture in relations with Cuba and Venezuela and Bra-zil’s withdrawal from the UN, the OAS, Mercosur, UNASUR and the BRICS. Reality, however, turned out to be much more challenging and the forecasts of political experts came true only partially. Since from the very beginning J. Bolsonaro was supported by such various groups as the military, evangelicals, representatives of agribusiness, economists, they often suggested to him absolutely contradictory foreign policy decisions. As a result, almost any step in the international arena was replaced by a retreat: criticism of China's expansion was followed by the signing of economic agreements with him, after the announcement of the intention to move the embas-sy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, followed by visits to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE. Although J. Bolsonaro criticized multilateral diplomacy, he achieved the signing of agreements between Mer-cosur and the EU, Mercosur and EFTA. Nevertheless, the President of Brazil has invariably adhered to the course of automatic alignment with the United States and developed relations mainly with regimes close to him in ideology. It is difficult to judge how correct this strategy was, but in the future the Brazil-ian government must first of all be guided by the interests of the country, remember the need for its autonomy and economic prosperity.


2020 ◽  
pp. 97-110
Author(s):  
Yevgeny Ryabinin

The hypothesis of this research is that Russia has been imposing its influence on Ukraine since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Before the political and military crisis in 2013, it was an indirect influence, whereas since 2014 it has been a direct impact in many spheres. It is necessary to underline that Ukraine has always been split into two parts in terms of foreign policy priorities, language, religion, and culture. This fact was mentioned by Samuel Huntington, who predicted an intense crisis in bilateral relations between Russia and Ukraine in his work Clash of Civilizations. There were two parties in Ukraine that were widely supported in South-Eastern Ukraine, namely the Party of Regions and the Communist Party. The former never spoke about the integration of Ukraine as part of Russian integrational projects because its politicians were afraid of aggressive Russian capital. So they only used pro-Russian rhetoric to win elections. The Communist Party openly backed integration with Russia, but didn’t get enough support as for this idea. It is also demonstrated that there were no parties that were backed financially by Russia, because the parties that offered a kind of a union with Russia never got any seats in the parliament. Since 2014, Russia has been imposing its influence on Ukraine in various spheres, such as economics, politics, diplomacy, the military sphere, etc. Having signed two cease-fire agreements, Russia and Ukraine have failed to apply them and the crisis continues to this day.


2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 183
Author(s):  
Anak Agung Banyu Perwita ◽  
Widya Dwi Rachmawati

The geopolitical security condition of Eastern Europe has undergone a drastic shift from Communist to Democratic ideology. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Poland immediately joined the Western alliance, which led to the massive structural changes of the country. The shift has had an enormous impact on Russia where it has made various confrontations to regain its influence in the region. Russia continues to increase tensions by increasing the military capabilities of Kaliningrad Oblast, which is directly bordered by Poland. In response, the Polish government made efforts to modernize its military as part of the Defense White Book 2013 to improve its military capabilities in response to Russian military presence in Kaliningrad Oblast. The role of the global players (EU, NATO, and the USA) is key important to the security stability of the region. Poland on its four pillars specifically calls the alliance with the USA and becomes a member of NATO as an important factor in the formulation of its defense policy, in which Poland could increase the capabilities of its Armed Forces.


Author(s):  
Ali Satan ◽  
Meral Balcı

In 1947, a British diplomat conducted a visit to the places travelled rarely by local and foreign travelers, The Black Sea Coast between Samsun and Giresun in the North, the Malatya-Erzincan train line in the South, the Sivas-Erzurum train route in the West, Erzincan-Şebinkarahisar- Giresun in the East, and reported what he saw to London. In secret report, there provided military, political, ethnographic and historical information. In rapidly changing life conditions in the world, this secret report, which was written seventy years ago, set us on a historical journey. In the year, which the secret report was written, Turkey preferred being part of Western bloc in newly established bipolar international system and British diplomats were trying to understand how Britain and the Soviet Union were looked at in the regions they visited. In the secret report, there were also striking observations regarding the activities of the newly formed opposition party (Democratic Party) in Anatolia, the distance between the Turkish elites and the Anatolian villagers, and the military-civilian relationship in Anatolia.


1956 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 220-223

The fifteen countries members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) were represented by their defense ministers at a conference held in Paris from October 10 to 12, under the chairmanship of Lord Ismay (Vice Chairman of the North Atlantic Council and Secretary General of NATO). The meeting, which was attended by the Standing Group and the Supreme Commanders, was a preliminary to the full ministerial session, to be held in December; it was the first occasion on which the NATO defense ministers met in Council without the foreign or finance ministers. A communique issued at the close of the meeting stated that the meeting had primarily been for the exchange of information, and that the ministers had heard statements on the strategic situation and on western defensive arrangements from General Sir John Whiteley (United Kingdom), Chairman of the Standing Group, and from his colleagues on the Standing Group, General Joseph Lawton Collins (United States), General Jean Valluy (France), General Alfred M. Gruenther (SACEUR), Admiral Jerauld Wright (SACLANT) and several other officers. Following these statements, a useful exchange of views between the defense ministers took place, the communique concluded. It was reported that many of the speakers had concurred in the view that the military potential of the Soviet Union was steadily increasing, especially in the areas of atomic weapons and submarines, that the recently announced decision to reduce the armed forces in the Soviet Union and some of the people's democracies did not modify the potential of communist forces, and that it was therefore indispensable to intensify the NATO military effort, which so far had not met expectations for it.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document