scholarly journals Euro-Atlantic Security in U.S.-EURussia Triangle and Trump Factor

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (6) ◽  
pp. 78-108
Author(s):  
M. M. Panyuzheva
Keyword(s):  
The United States ◽  
Regional Security ◽  
Political Elites ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Current State ◽  
The Us ◽  
Security Relations ◽  
The Usa ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Eu

The article discusses the security relations among the United States, the EU and Russia in the context of Donald Trump's populism, the change of Western political elites and the erosion of arms treaty regimes. The purpose of the article is to analyze the current state and identify the probable scenarios of relations in the triangle of the USA – the EU – Russia. The article explores the features of the Euro-Atlantic security system from 1990’s till the mid-2000’s; the concept of Euro-Atlantic security in 2008-2009; the US, the EU and Russia relations under Barak Obama and Donald Trump. As a result of a comprehensive analysis, the author comes to the following conclusions: 1) the concept of Euro-Atlantic security is still relevant. Since the NATO based security arrangements are not stabile, security interaction among the USA, the EU and Russia is growing in importance. 2) European leaders seem to be moving towards building a new security architecture and a more balanced dialogue with Russia. The EU remains the main economic partner of the Russian Federation. 3) Trump's “transactional” approach has prompted Europeans to strengthen its defense identity and seek a compromise with Russia. 4) In a multipolar world, the Euro-Atlantic regional security is no longer closed to transatlantic ties. It is important to rethink the concept towards cooperation with non-regional countries. 5) The complex game of engagement and deterrence is likely to continue in relations between Russia and the West. The more uncertain the transatlantic relations become, the more the EU and the US need Russia.The author declares absence of conflict of interests.

scholarly journals Ukraine in the Focus of US Foreign Policy Priorities

2020 ◽  
pp. 66-79
Author(s):  
N. Gegelashvili ◽  
◽  
I. Modnikova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The Us ◽  
The World ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Radical Transformation

The article analyzes the US policy towards Ukraine dating back from the time before the reunification of Crimea with Russia and up to Donald Trump coming to power. The spectrum of Washington’s interests towards this country being of particular strategic interest to the United States are disclosed. It should be noted that since the disintegration of the Soviet Union Washington’s interest in this country on the whole has not been very much different from its stand on all post-Soviet states whose significance was defined by the U,S depending on their location on the world map as well as on the value of their natural resources. However, after the reunification of Crimea with Russia Washington’s stand on this country underwent significant changes, causing a radical transformation of the U,S attitude in their Ukrainian policy. During the presidency of Barack Obama the American policy towards Ukraine was carried out rather sluggishly being basically declarative in its nature. When President D. Trump took his office Washington’s policy towards Ukraine became increasingly more offensive and was characterized by a rather proactive stance not only because Ukraine became the principal arena of confrontation between the United States and the Russian Federation, but also because it became a part of the US domestic political context. Therefore, an outcome of the “battle” for Ukraine is currently very important for the United States in order to prove to the world its role of the main helmsman in the context of a diminishing US capability of maintaining their global superiority.

scholarly journals Geopolitical and regional considerations: US, China and, Russia: partners or competitors?

2021 ◽  
pp. 55-65
Author(s):  
Anatoliy Khudoliy
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Asia Pacific ◽  
Regional Politics ◽  
Republic Of China ◽  
One Belt One Road ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Usa ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Political Economic

The article deals with the policy of the United States of America, Peoples’ Republic of China (PRC) and the Russian Federation in the Asia-Pacific Region. Leadership ambitions of the countries became evident in political, economic, military, technological and space spheres especially over the last few years. The purpose of the article is to analyze American-Chinese and Russian-Chinese relationships in the Asia-Pacific and identify reasons for their foreign policy course. Both countries, China and the USA are eager to play leader’s part in the regional politics. The relationships between the PRC and the United States significantly deteriorated, especially during D. Trump presidency. The author draws attention to the US policy and its attempts to strengthen its own positions in the region as well as to China’s economic activity reflected in transport projects, for instance – One Belt, One Road initiative, perceived by Washington as a challenge to its leader’s position. Tensions between two countries increased due to aggressive regional policy of China which claimed sovereignty over few small islands in the South China Sea. Beijing and Washington compete for leadership in the sphere of technology where China is ahead of the USA.

scholarly journals TRADE POLICY OF THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNDER THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-59
Author(s):  
Viktoriya Mashkara-Choknadiy ◽  
Yuriy Mayboroda
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Trade ◽  
Trade Policy ◽  
Social Life ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Foreign Trade Policy ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Usa ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu

The pandemic of COVID-19 has influenced all sectors of social life, including the global economy and trade relations. The year of 2020 was marked with significant changes in internal and foreign economic policy of almost all nations. The purpose of the paper is to study the measures taken by the EU and the USA as the world's leading economies to regulate their foreign trade in the global crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The tasks of the study are to show the influence of the crisis on changes of global trade policy in front of the threat to national security. Methodology. The study is based on the results of statistical analysis of data provided the WTO and the UNCTAD. The authors show an analytical assessment of the foreign trade indicators of the EU and the USA. Methods of comparison and generalization were used to formulate conclusions on regulatory trends in foreign trade of the US and the EU. Results allowed identifying specific features and changes in the regulation of foreign trade of the EU and the US, assessing the impact of the pandemic on their foreign trade. It was found that both mentioned players of the world economy have actively introduced both deterrent and liberalization measures during 2020, which were aimed at providing the domestic market with scarce COVID-related goods. The study shows the transition from export restricting to import liberalizing measures in foreign trade policies from the start of pandemic to the late 2020. Practical implications. Understanding and predicting the possible actions of partners (the US and the EU in this case) in the field of foreign trade regulation is an important practical aspect, which has to be taken into account when developing Ukraine's foreign trade policy. Value/originality. The study of foreign trade policy of the world's leading countries allows us to understand the behavior of governments of the countries that are largely dependent on participation in international trade in their development, to draw conclusions about the most common instruments of foreign trade policy in the time of humanitarian and economic crises.

An SFL Approach to Biden’s Inauguration Speech after Winning the Presidential Election: Compensation

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Reza Abbaszadeh
Keyword(s):  
Presidential Election ◽  
Systemic Functional Linguistics ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Agreements ◽  
Critical Approach ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Democratic Administration ◽  
The Us ◽  
The World ◽  
The Usa

The US election is an influential event, not just in the USA itself but in the world. The present study aims to analyze Joe Biden’s inauguration speech after winning the presidential election in January 2021 and becoming the 46th president of the United States. Moreover, this paper attempts to investigate the USA’s possible policies toward their own nation and, of course, the other countries. This analysis goes through predicting probable upcoming policies of Biden’s administration comparing to the previous president of the USA, Donald Trump, who breached several international agreements. To this end, Halliday’s systemic functional linguistics (SFL) (Halliday, 1978; Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014) has been employed in Biden’s first speech after winning the election and beginning of the democratic administration to observe his political intentions by means of a critical approach and using appraisal resources of Martin and White (2007) to clarify the attitude, graduation, and engagement of his speech. Overall, designating the number of vocabularies related to any of the mentioned appraisal resources, it is concluded that Biden’s tendency, based on his inauguration speech and the lexical and grammatical (‘lexicogrammar) choices, is to compensate Trump’s actions, such as breaching 2015 JCPOA agreement and breaking 2015 Paris Climate Accord, and make peace with whom Trump had fueled conflicts.

Debates on the Role of the US Theatre Missile Defense in Regional Deterrence of Russia and China

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 58-84
Author(s):  
O. O. Krivolapov
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Political Leadership ◽  
The United States ◽  
Regional Security ◽  
Nuclear Forces ◽  
Missile Defense ◽  
Us Military ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Russian Federation

Studies on missile defense, both in Russia and abroad, have been tradition- ally focused either on capabilities of the US national missile defense system to parry Russian or Chinese strategic nuclear forces, or on regional deter- rence of North Korea and Iran by means of regional missile defense (theater missile defense, TMD). However, the 2019 Missile Defense Review (MDR) emphasized the role of the TMD systems in the regional deterrence of the Russian Federation and China. So far this issue has received little attention and this paper aims to fill that gap. The first section identifies the key points of the MDR concerning the capabilities of regional missile defense for regional deterrence of the major nuclear powers. The author also examines the views of different represen- tatives of the US Department of Defense on this issue, and concludes that the US military-political leadership has a generally positive assessment of the capabilities of the TMD systems to contain Russia and China in case of a regional crisis. In particular, planners emphasize the role of the regional missile defense in countering the ‘anti-access/access-denial’ capabilities and the concept of ‘escalate to de-escalate’ ascribed to Russia. At the same time, US policymakers express in that regard serious concerns about Russia’s and China’s progress in the development of hypersonic missile systems. The second section examines the ongoing debates in Western expert so- ciety on the role of the regional missile defense in terms of deterring Russia and China. The author concludes that in this respect experts can provisionally be divided into two groups. The first group generally supports the arguments of the US military-political leadership and is optimistic about TMD capabili- ties for regional deterrence of Russia and China. The second group is more critical of these capabilities. They point out the lack of accurate data on the combat capabilities of such systems in active warfare and criticize question- able theoretical assumptions of their opponents. The third section provides a critical analysis of the arguments presented in this debate. The author concludes that the current concepts of deterrence based on the use of regional missile defense systems do not fully address possible implications for regional security and strategic stability. The Russian Federation and China possess significant nuclear arsenals, which already make nuclear escalation involving these countries and the United States possible. Adding yet another variable (TMD) into this equation only aggravates the situation.

ANALYSIS OF THE ROLE OF THE US PRINTED MEDIA IN THE INFORMATION WAR BETWEEN THE USA AND RUSSIA

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Е.V. MARTYNENKO ◽  
А.I. PENZINA
Keyword(s):  
Political Elites ◽  
American Democracy ◽  
Negative Image ◽  
Printed Media ◽  
The Past ◽  
Political Relations ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Usa ◽  
The Russian Federation

The article is devoted to the consideration of methods and ways of conducting information war by the US media against the Russian Federation over the past few years. On the example of publications about President Donald Trumps links with Russia, its possible to trace a traditional tendency to use the image of Russia as the main adversary (the socalled enemy image), which undermines the interests of American democracy. Under pressure from representatives of political elites and lobbyists, the US media systematically form a negative image of Russia, hindering the development of positive diplomatic, economic and political relations between the two strongest countries in the world. The authors of the study used the systemanalytical method, the method of analogies, the method of content analysis and the historicalanalytical method.

The United States and Regional Security Orders in the Middle East, East Asia, and Europe

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Overhaus
Keyword(s):  
Middle East ◽  
East Asia ◽  
The United States ◽  
Regional Security ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Geographical Regions ◽  
The World ◽  
American Hegemony ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Trump Administration

The USA is still the only power with the capability to have a major impact—for better or for worse—on the security orders in all major geographical regions of the world, most notably the Near/Middle East, East Asia, and Europe. A review of the major dynamics in regional orders shows that seven decades of American hegemony have always been short of the liberal ideal-type expectations—well before Donald Trump entered the scene. However, the Trump administration sees the international and regional security orders primarily as arenas for power competition in which economic and military might are the most relevant currencies. While the erosion of regional security orders is not primarily the result of the deeds and omissions in Washington, the missing liberal hegemon will make it much harder to reverse the trend and to rebuild these orders from within and from the outside.

The Prospects of the US Alliance System in Asia: Managing from the Hub

2020 ◽  
Vol 56 (03) ◽  
pp. 2040012
Author(s):  
PING-KUEI CHEN
Keyword(s):  
The United States ◽  
Regional Security ◽  
Hub And Spoke ◽  
Alliance Management ◽  
Bilateral Relations ◽  
The Us ◽  
Foreign Policies ◽  
Security Relations ◽  
Defense Cooperation ◽  
Alliance System

This paper examines the implications of the United States’ “hub-and-spoke” alliance system in Asia. It argues that the US enjoys a bargaining advantage in the current bilateral security relations with its Asian allies. In contrast to a multilateral alliance, the US can better prevent free riders and joint resistance in its bilateral relations. It can effectively restrain the behavior of its allies and compel them to accommodate American interests. The hub-and-spoke system helps the US consolidate its policy influence over the Asian allies, supervise inter-alliance cooperation, and increase defense cooperation between allies and non-allies. This paper uses episodes of defense cooperation between the US, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and India to illustrate the American alliance management techniques since 2016. During this time, the US allies have increasingly participated in regional security affairs due to US demands and guidance rather than autonomous decisions. Facing strong US pressure, allies have found it hard to challenge the US under the hub-and-spoke system despite common grievances. This leads to two implications for the future: First, the US allies may have less autonomy in their foreign policies, restraining their ability to pursue neutral positions and policies in regional affairs such as the South China Sea dispute. Second, the US may discourage or even undermine the emergence of multilateral security institutions in Asia. The US is likely to maintain the “hub-and-spoke” system to safeguard its strategic interests in the Indo-Pacific.

scholarly journals Making Sense of the Arbitrator's Ruling in DS 316, EC and Certain Member States – Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft (Article 22.6-EC): A Jigsaw Puzzle with (at Least) a Couple Missing Pieces

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Petros C. Mavroidis ◽  
Kamal Saggi
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Effects ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Liability Rule ◽  
Making Sense ◽  
Time Period ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Usa ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Eu

Abstract ‘The US won a $7.5 Billion award from the World Trade Organization against the European Union, who has for many years treated the USA very badly on Trade due to Tariffs, Trade Barriers, and more. This case going on for years, a nice victory’, tweeted President Trump on 3 October 2019. The United States (US) won not only the highest amount of retaliation ever adjudicated in the history of the WTO but also an ongoing right to retaliate on an annual basis until such time as the EU had complied by either removing the subsidies it granted Airbus or somehow neutralizing their adverse effects on Boeing. In light of the facts of the case, this ruling has two major shortcomings. First, in sharp contrast with the statutory language and practice until now, the Arbitrator effectively introduced a permanent liability rule into the WTO system through the backdoor. Second, given the way the decision and the associated award has been written, it is simply impossible for the EU to comply because (a) the contested subsidies are no longer in existence and (b) no guidance has been provided on how the EU might go about removing their adverse effects on Boeing if it sought to achieve compliance. Thus, in all likelihood, the EU is saddled with a ruling that obligates it to cough up an annual sum of $7.5 billion USD for an indefinite time period.

scholarly journals Modern Ukrainian diaspora in Canada and the USA

2018 ◽  
pp. 110-123
Author(s):  
Andrii Zubyk
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
Native Language ◽  
The United States ◽  
Ethnic Origin ◽  
Current State ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Fourth Wave ◽  
Information Basis

The current state of the Ukrainian diaspora, which is living in Canada and the United States, is analysed in this article. The Ukrainian diaspora in these countries has more than a century history. It is the second (Canada) and the third (USA), after the Russian Federation in the world by the number of Ukrainians. More than a third of the total number of Ukrainians outside of our country is overall living in Canada and the United States. The results of the census conducted in these countries, including their ethnocultural component, ethnicity, country of origin, native language and the language usually spoken at home were information basis of the study. In accordance with the results of the census, which reflect the resettlement and ethnolinguistic conformity of the Ukrainian diaspora, the author maps in the environment of program ArcMap are created. The Ukrainian diaspora resettlement in terms of provinces (Canada) and states (the USA) is analysed in the article. As a result of the late XX–early XXI century census, changes in its settlement is also revealed. It was found that Canadian Ukrainian diaspora lives mainly in the provinces, where Ukrainian emigration had begun. In the US, with the appearance of the fourth “wave” of Ukrainian emigration its resettlement has changed: unlike the early twentieth century when Ukrainians mostly arrived in Pennsylvania, New York and Ohio at present Ukrainians prefer emigration to the states of Washington, Oregon and California. The study found that the Ukrainian diaspora in these countries, despite the preservation of their ethnic origin, undergo significant linguistic assimilation. According to census found that in Canada and the USA minor ethnolinguistic conformity of the Ukrainian diaspora. The territorial regularity in ethnolinguistic conformity of Ukrainian diaspora: the smaller in number Ukrainian diaspora, the higher ethnolinguistic conformity are traced. Key words: Ukrainian diaspora, assimilation, entho-linguistic conformity, immigration, settlement, native language.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document