Students with Disabilities, Learning Difficulties and Disadvantages in the Baltic States, South Eastern Europe and Malta

The article is devoted to clarifying the problem of the end of postcommunist transformations and the essence of the further development of the ex-postcommunist countries. The avalanche collapse of the communist regimes at the turn of the 1980s and 1990s led to the beginning of postcommunist transformations. Today it can be stated that this process is over. The author argues this conclusion with the following considerations: 1) any transformational process, the essence of which is to replace one quality of society or its political system with another, cannot go on indefinitely, it must end someday; 2) the end of the transformation process is due to the establishment of a new quality; 3) the totalitarian nature of the previous communist regimes presupposes the multivariate end of postcommunist transformations. Various postcommunist countries have achieved different results during transformations. In Central-Eastern Europe, the Baltic States, and a number of countries in South-Eastern Europe, postcommunist transformations have culminated in the establishment of democracy. The transformations of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan was over the establishment of authoritarian regimes. Neo-totalitarian regimes have emerged in Belarus, Russia, and Turkmenistan. In Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Armenia, Georgia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Moldova and Ukraine, political development fluctuates between democracy and authoritarianism for a long time. The author concludes that the period of postcommunism in all these countries finally over in the middle of 2010s. The end of postcommunism marked the beginning of a new stage in the socio-political development of the ex-communist countries. Its main tendencies are revealed in this paper. The author includes in such: 1) a fall the level of democracy in Central-Eastern and South-Eastern Europe; 2) a strengthening differentiation of political development of single regions and the countries; 3) a growth of nationalism; 4) a changes in relations with the EU; 4) a strengthening Russia's interference.

Download Full-text

ORIGIN OF HEAD CROWNS IN ANCIENT AESTIA AND PRUSSIANS

Vestnik Bryanskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta ◽

10.22281/2413-9912-2021-05-03-99-109 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 03 (07) ◽

pp. 99-109

Author(s):

V.I. Kulakov ◽

Keyword(s):

Material Culture ◽

Middle Ages ◽

Baltic States ◽

Archaeological Material ◽

South Eastern ◽

Northern European ◽

Ancient Society ◽

South Eastern Europe ◽

Trade Route ◽

The Baltic

The archaeological material of the south-eastern Baltic States contains several rare specimens of typeset head corollas for the antiquities of the Western Balts. The conclusions obtained as a result of the analysis of the head corollas of the Western Balts of the I-XIV centuries can be presented as follows: 1. Northern European masters at the beginning of our era created their own versions of head wreaths, based on examples of ancient votive wreaths. The latter were used both in triumphal events and at the burial of notable members of ancient society. It remains unclear under what conditions the Scandinavians could adopt the idea of a votive wreath, reworking it in the form of head corollas. 2. In phase B1, individual representatives of the northern tribes appear on Sambia, who brought crowns with them to the Amber Coast as part of the matrimonial "import", which were attached in especially solemn (cult ?) in cases of head covering. 3. In Roman times, head crowns did not find their place in the material culture of the population of the western outskirts of the Baltic world. In the early Middle Ages, through the mediation of master jewelers of south-eastern Europe, the tradition of wearing corollas made using Byzantine traditions spread in the Baltic States. It is possible that these traditions came to the Baltic States with groups of artisans along the Vislin trade route – the ancient Great Amber Road.

Download Full-text

The “New Cold Warriors” and the “Pragmatics”: The Differences in Foreign Policy Attitudes towards Russia and the Eastern Partnership States among the NATO Member States from Central and South-Eastern Europe

Croatian International Relations Review ◽

10.1515/cirr-2017-0021 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 23 (80) ◽

pp. 61-96 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Petar Kurečić

Keyword(s):

Eastern Europe ◽

Member States ◽

Eastern Partnership ◽

Eu Member States ◽

South Eastern ◽

Policy Attitudes ◽

The Us ◽

South Eastern Europe ◽

The Difference ◽

The Baltic

AbstractThe post-communist NATO member states from Central and South-Eastern Europe (CSEE) comprise a group of 11 NATO/EU member states, from the Baltic to the Adriatic and Black Sea. The twelfth and thirteenth NATO member states from the region are Albania and Montenegro. The afore-mentioned NATO/EU member states have mostly shown a similar stance towards the Eastern Partnership Policy. However, since 2014, these states have shown more diverse stances, albeit declaratively supporting the anti-Russian sanctions. Due to the difference in stances towards Russia, the “New Cold Warriors” (Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Romania) and the “Pragmatics” (Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia and Bulgaria), will maintain a mostly common course towards Russia and the Eastern Partnership states because they have to. The Czech Republic, although hosting a part of the US anti-ballistic missile shield, is not a genuine “New Cold Warrior”, while in 2016 Croatia effectively became one.

Download Full-text