scholarly journals From Integrity to the New Split and Rivalry? (World-System and World Order in Changing Realities)

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 32-48
Author(s):  
A. V. Ryabov
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
World System ◽  
World Order ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The World ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Liberal Capitalism ◽  
Social Project

The collapse of the Soviet Union and socialist commonwealth contributed to the reconstruction of integrity of the World-System. These changes became a major global transformation of the second half of the XX century. Then there was an opinion that over time the model of liberal capitalism would be established in all countries. However the restoration of the integrity of the global world did not lead to shaping of its homogeneity. New contradictions emerged both between developed and developing countries and within the core countries of the World-System. All of this undermined stability of the system and contributed to the gradual distraction of the unipolar world order. Russia initially tried to be integrated into the new world reality and become the main partner of the USA as a center of the World-System. However the plans of the United States and its allies did not provide that Russia would retain its role as an important and independent actor in world politics. As a result, Russia’s integration into the West did not take place. Nevertheless having made the transition to an independent policy not subordinated to the USA and its allies Russia could not claim to create alternative global social project as the Soviet Union had. To do this Russia had neither resources nor attractive idea for the rest of the world. As China began to turn into economic superpower it seemed that Beijing was not going to offer the world its own social project alternative to liberal capitalism but it claimed only to take place in existing global system corresponding to its economic impact. Situation was changed after the USA in the middle of the 10-th felt in China a serious rival and moved to the policy of deterrence of it. China began to work out its own model of the world order. Now in comparison with the past many experts suppose that Chinese model of the social and political order may be used by other developing countries. Will this lead to emergence of the new global project alternative to the Western liberal capitalism and to distraction of integrity of the World-System? Will there be a new global transformation as a result of current processes? This article is devoted to the analysis of probable prospects of these tendencies of the world development. 

To the discussion about the modern world order

2020 ◽  
pp. 35-41
Author(s):  
A. Mustafabeyli
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Intergovernmental Relations ◽  
World System ◽  
Main Tool ◽  
World Order ◽  
Modern World ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The World ◽  
And Behavior ◽  
Second World

In many political researches there if a conclusion that the world system which was founded after the Second world war is destroyed of chaos. But the world system couldn`t work while the two opposite systems — socialist and capitalist were in hard confrontation. After collapse of the Soviet Union and the European socialist community the nature of intergovernmental relations and behavior of the international community did not change. The power always was and still is the main tool of international communication.

Russian Emigration and the USA. F. Stepun and M.M. Karpovich (Preface to the Publication of Letters from F.A. Stepun to M.M. Karpovich)

2021 ◽  
pp. 138
Author(s):  
Vladimir K. Кantor ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
Second World War ◽  
Eastern Bloc ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The World ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Anglo American ◽  
Second World

The author examines a geopolitical line in the development of Russian philoso­phy in emigration. Not only the Russian revolution of 1917, not only the Nazi revolution of 1933–1935, but the Second World War changed the balance of power on the intellectual map of the world. Hitler was defeated by the Soviet Union with the help of the Anglo-American allies. As a result, two blocks emerged. They got a taste for the disposal of Europe and other countries of the United States, the USSR also strengthened, expanding the area of its influence (“Eastern bloc”). Should emigrants return to Russia? Bunin tried, but at the bor­der he turned back after reading articles about Akhmatova and Zoshchenko in the Pravda newspaper. Remain in a devastated and half-starved Europe, which has no time for emigrants? Or choose the third path where the track has al­ready been paved. Russian intellectuals from Germany have already settled in the United States, many have taken root there, some have returned. This, in essence, was the second emigration, the continuation of the first. There was already an experience of flight, but there was also a craving for German culture, which, despite the German Nazism sweeping through the world, Russian thinkers highly valued. They – as it should be in trouble – held on to each other. An example of this intellectual collaboration is Karpovich and Stepun.

The Commonwealth Caribbean in the New World Order: Between Europe and North America?

1992 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 39-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony J. Payne ◽  
Paul K. Sutton
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
New World ◽  
World Order ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Capital ◽  
New World Order ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The World ◽  
The One ◽  
President Bush

The Supposed emergence of a New World Order has quickly become one of the cliches of the 1990s. First enunciated by President Bush in the context of US attempts to mobilize international support for the Gulf War, the phrase has already been defined and redefined in countless journalistic analyses of recent events in Eastern Europe, the Gulf itself and lately of course the Soviet Union. This is not the place to add directly to that debate. It is obvious that the world order of the 1990s is very different from the post-1945 order. Briefly expressed, it is constituted by the interplay between, on the one hand, a new but still unequal diffusion of power between the core states of the world (the United States, the European Community [EC], and Japan) and, on the other, a new concentration of power in the hands of international capital.

The Rules of the Game

1987 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 37-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stanley Hoffmann
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Ethical Judgment ◽  
World Order ◽  
Balance Of Power ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Foreign Policy ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The World ◽  
International Systems

International systems have historically come in two forms: those based on the balance of power and those of a revolutionary nature, including systems organized around bipolar competition. Hoffmann finds the world order of 1987 to contain both these systems and judges it both ambiguous and original. While the tension of these extremes can make the world appear “anarchical,” there are certain agreed upon rules by which the superpowers interact. These rules ultimately preserve order by embracing competition between the United States and the Soviet Union; superpower confrontation is prevented by each nation holding to their own ideals and sovereignty while embracing nuclear deterrence. Having revealed the rules of the superpower game, Hoffmann then subjects them to ethical judgment. Despite the historic duration of peace between superpowers that seems to have been sustained by these rules, Hoffmann finds them both ethically flawed and ultimately unstable. Turning to a brief consideration of United States foreign policy, he points to particular moral difficulties in U.S. stances and urges the development of superpower rules that are effective and ethical.

scholarly journals Security System and Peaceful Structure of Northeast Asia After Cold War: Special Reference to Korean Peninsula

1991 ◽  
Vol 6 (0) ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Chong-Ki Choi
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cold War ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
New World ◽  
International Politics ◽  
World Order ◽  
The United States ◽  
New World Order ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The World

Order is not always the same as justice. But after radical changes of the Soviet Union and east Europe, most analysts and specialists of international politics are trying to predict new world order after Cold War. Of course order gives us concrete situation for making foreign policies and economic cooperation and pursuing them. And order at least frees us from instability of international politics. But order, at the same time, limits each country's right to take alternatives for her interests. At any rate, we need to analyze the international situation and predict new world order after Cold War. What will be the shape of the new world order? Some analyst, such as Prof. Paul Kennedy in the Rise and Fall of Great Powers describe the change in the world as the decline of the superpowers, including both the Soviet Union and the United States. Other specialists such as Prof. Joseph Nye in Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power describes that while the United States will remain the largest state, the world will see a diffusion of power and a growth of multiple inter-dependencies.

scholarly journals Mass and uncontrolled immigration as a threat to the civil, legal and civilizational stability in Western European countries and Russia

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 3-9
Author(s):  
R. V. Yengibaryan
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Western Europe ◽  
The United States ◽  
Financial Economic ◽  
Global Politics ◽  
World Community ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The World ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Political Economic

Introduction. Following the collapse, or rather self-liquidation, of the Soviet Union-USSR world events began to develop at a kaleidoscopic speed. Europe, Russia and the United States ceased to be central actors in global politics. Huge civilization countries such as China, India and the African continent broke into global politics with ever-increasing power. The united bloc of Islamic countries began to make aggressive claims to the entire world community, and especially to the countries of Christian civilization. And the most important and unexpected thing is that the peoples, nations, communities everywhere began to return to their civilizational, religious and spiritual roots.Materials and methods. Various methods such as comparative law, systemic, logical analysis and other methods were used in writing this article.The results of the study. The attempt to globalize the world by the socio-political criterion “capitalism socialism” failed. The world community, or rather its political, economic and intellectual elite, was given a clear message: ideologies of all kinds communism, fascism, nationalism, socialism eventually undergo transformation, split into sub streams and practically disappear, but the world religions and civilizations remain.Discussion and conclusion. The world globalized spontaneously and naturally, with financial, economic, political and technological dimensions playing the major role. At the same time globalization laid the foundation of new contradictions among countries that enjoy different social, economic levels of development and belong to various civilizations. Moreover, the interests of civilizations living in different time dimensions began to clash, like Islam that lives in 1441 and other countries that have been living in the 21st century for the second decade. The ideology of multiculturalism both in Western Europe and in the USA turned out to be unrealizable in practice, just like the communist ideology that has sunk into oblivion.

scholarly journals SPECIAL ASPECTS OF THE MODERN WORLD ECONOMY: TRANSITION FROM A UNIPOLAR TO A MULTIPOLAR WORLD SYSTEM

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 356-360
Author(s):  
Irina V. Minakova ◽  
Tatyana N. Bukreeva ◽  
Оlga I. Solodukhina ◽  
Оlga G. Timofeeva
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
World Economy ◽  
World System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Financial Economic ◽  
Modern World ◽  
Development Indicators ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The World

This paper reveals the consequences of the unipolar system of the world economy provided by the United States leadership in the military-technological, financial-economic, geopolitical and information-ideological spheres. It was established that after the collapse of the socialist camp, the concepts of ‘humanitarian intervention’ and ‘spreading democracy’ were brought to the forefront. In practice, Western European countries have demonstrated their readiness to judge the solutions of domestic political disputes in other countries of the world, especially when it comes to geopolitically important countries. A series of ‘colour revolutions’ have become a demonstration of this policy. Therefore, the globalization of the modern world does not mean the homogenization of development indicators of countries’, but instead leads to further delamination and inequality. The gap between the world leaders and the rest of the world in terms of indicators reflecting the dynamics of the standard of living, the quality of life, scientific and technological progress, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, has significantly increased.It is illustrated that attempts of the US to consolidate its hegemony in the form of ‘leadership’ in the world had led to the erosion of international legal principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter. Therefore, the United States attempts to solve the problems in Iraq and Afghanistan unilaterally has failed.The objective and subjective signs of a global restructuring of the existing unipolar world system are revealed.

scholarly journals China-U.S.-Europe Relations: Shaping a Future-Oriented World Order

2016 ◽  
Vol 02 (04) ◽  
pp. 449-464
Author(s):  
Wu Chunsi
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Global Financial Crisis ◽  
World Order ◽  
Balance Of Power ◽  
The United States ◽  
Major Power ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The World ◽  
The Cold War

China, Europe, and the United States constitute a very important trilateral relationship in China’s diplomacy. This trilateral relationship is incomparable to that of China, the United States, and the Soviet Union during the Cold War not only in that “polar” is no longer a valid concept to describe major-power relations today, but also in that China-U.S.-Europe relations are not deliberately constructed for the three parties to balance each other or oppose any party. To be more specific, China’s deliberations on Europe’s role in the world have gone beyond the logic of balance of power. Especially after the 2008 global financial crisis, China has taken ever more efforts to strengthen its ties with European nations, both to meet its growing economic demands, and because it seeks to learn from the post-modern social governance experience in Europe. In comparison, China’s relationship with the United States is far more complex as the two countries have been engaged in increasing divergence and competition not only on specific issues, but more importantly, in trends of the world order. As three giants that have the potential to lead the world to a better future, China, Europe, and the United States need to deepen their mutual understanding and foster greater consensus about the future world order through closer communication and exchange, as well as enhanced cooperation on global governance.

scholarly journals Models of a New World: towards a Synthesis

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 189-206
Author(s):  
R. Väyrynen
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
World War Ii ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
World Order ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The World ◽  
Military Relations ◽  
The Military ◽  
The U.S

Three alternative world orders can be imagined in the post-World War II international relations. During most of the Cold War a bipolar order, centered on the possession of nuclear weapons, existed. This world order was incomplete, however. The United States and the Soviet Union faced each other with equal capacity to destroy each other, but in terms of economic and global influence the United States was superior. The strengthening of economic and technological dynamics increased further the U.S. influence, but also sparked the power of non-states actors, including transnational corporations and banks, independent of states. Simultaneously with the globalization of the world, one could witness the rise of non-state actors in the military and political fields. The emergence of the world order of the third type has sometimes been called the neomedieval world in which some central tenets of feudalism has re-emerged. None of these world order models can be said to dominate in today’s world and none of them is likely to emerge victorious any time soon. In recent times., globalization has suffered from various setbacks and state-centric relations have reemerged. Their focus is not, however, any more on the military competition between the United States and Russia, although some of its elements remain in the arms competition between them. Globalization has brought in new ingredients in the rivalries between states and it has appeared most visibly in the U.S.-Chinese rivalry for economic and technological dominance of the globalized world economy. In other words, a new type of economic bipolarity is winning ground and is only secondarily manifesting itself in military relations. Patterns of warfare has in recent decades been colored by fighting of non-state military forces and the rise of new feudal patterns of behavior, but they have not been pronounced enough to justify the labeling of the entire world order by the name.

The Role of the Mongolian People’s Republic in the Korean War

2018 ◽  
pp. 97-130
Author(s):  
Denzenlkham Ulambayar
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Korean War ◽  
World Order ◽  
The United States ◽  
Central Intelligence Agency ◽  
Intelligence Agency ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Archival Documents ◽  
The Korean War ◽  
History Of

Since the 1990s, when previously classified and top secret Russian archival documents on the Korean War became open and accessible, it has become clear for post-communist countries that Kim Il Sung, Stalin and Mao Zedong were the primary organizers of the war. It is now equally certain that tensions arising from Soviet and American struggle generated the origins of the Korean War, namely the Soviet Union’s occupation of the northern half of the Korean peninsula and the United States’ occupation of the southern half to the 38th parallel after 1945 as well as the emerging bipolar world order of international relations and Cold War. Newly available Russian archival documents produced much in the way of new energies and opportunities for international study and research into the Korean War.2 However, within this research few documents connected to Mongolia have so far been found, and little specific research has yet been done regarding why and how Mongolia participated in the Korean War. At the same time, it is becoming today more evident that both Soviet guidance and U.S. information reports (evaluated and unevaluated) regarding Mongolia were far different from the situation and developments of that period. New examples of this tendency are documents declassified in the early 2000s and released publicly from the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in December 2016 which contain inaccurate information. The original, uncorrupted sources about why, how and to what degree the Mongolian People’s Republic (MPR) became a participant in the Korean War are in fact in documents held within the Mongolian Central Archives of Foreign Affairs. These archives contain multiple documents in relation to North Korea. Prior to the 1990s Mongolian scholars Dr. B. Lkhamsuren,3 Dr. B. Ligden,4 Dr. Sh. Sandag,5 junior scholar J. Sukhee,6 and A. A. Osipov7 mention briefly in their writings the history of relations between the MPR and the DPRK during the Korean War. Since the 1990s the Korean War has also briefly been touched upon in the writings of B. Lkhamsuren,8 D. Ulambayar (the author of this paper),9 Ts. Batbayar,10 J. Battur,11 K. Demberel,12 Balảzs Szalontai,13 Sergey Radchenko14 and Li Narangoa.15 There have also been significant collections of documents about the two countries and a collection of memoirs published in 200716 and 2008.17 The author intends within this paper to discuss particularly about why, how and to what degree Mongolia participated in the Korean War, the rumors and realities of the war and its consequences for the MPR’s membership in the United Nations. The MPR was the second socialist country following the Soviet Union (the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics) to recognize the DPRK (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) and establish diplomatic ties. That was part of the initial stage of socialist system formation comprising the Soviet Union, nations in Eastern Europe, the MPR, the PRC (People’s Republic of China) and the DPRK. Accordingly between the MPR and the DPRK fraternal friendship and a framework of cooperation based on the principles of proletarian and socialist internationalism had been developed.18 In light of and as part of this framework, The Korean War has left its deep traces in the history of the MPR’s external diplomatic environment and state sovereignty

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document