scholarly journals Gruzja w polityce Polski w latach 1991−2009

2021 ◽  
Vol 74 (4) ◽  
pp. 101-127
Author(s):  
Paweł Kowal
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Entry Point ◽  
Social Imaginary ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Polish Foreign

This article focuses on Georgia’s role in Polish foreign policy after the breakup of the Soviet Union. It brings exceptional focus to the period after 2005 and changes in the conception of agreement with Russia based on the ministers of foreign affairs Stefan Meller’s mission for the Eastern policy in the spirit of prometheism. The author concentrates on the analysis of motives behind Georgia’s significant place in Polish foreign policy and interprets the Eastern policy of president Lech Kaczyński and subsequent cabinets after the 2005 election in this aspect. As an entry point for the analysis of the context of intense Polish-Georgian relations after 2005 the author brings up Charles Taylor’s social imaginary concept.

Incremental Activism in Soviet Third World Policy: The Role of the International Department of the CPSU Central Committee

Slavic Review ◽  
1989 ◽  
Vol 48 (4) ◽  
pp. 614-630
Author(s):  
Jan S. Adams
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Control Unit ◽  
Central Committee ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
International Affairs ◽  
Mikhail Gorbachev ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Soviet Foreign Policy

Historically, leaders of the Soviet Union have shown extraordinary faith in the power of bureaucratic reorganization to solve political problems. The 1985-1987 restaffing and restructuring of the foreign policy establishment indicate that Mikhail Gorbachev shares this faith. In the first sixteen months of his leadership, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs replaced its minister, two first deputy ministers, seven deputy ministers, a third of all Soviet ambassadors, and created four new departments. In addition, important changes were made in the central party apparat, affecting three of the CPSU Central Committee departments: The International Information Department was abolished. The Propaganda Department gained added prominence in international affairs with the appointment of a new chief, Aleksandr Iakovlev, who began playing a conspicuous role as Gorbachev's advisor at international conferences even before his elevation to the Politburo in January 1987. Of great significance for the Soviet foreign policy establishment as a whole, the International Department (ID) was given new leadership, a new arms control unit, and expanded missions.

scholarly journals Cooperation of the USSR, the Ukrainian SSR and the Belarusian SSR in the UN during the Perestroika Period

2021 ◽  
pp. 113-140
Author(s):  
Uladzimir Snapkouski ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
National Interests ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Specialized Institutions ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
Foreign Ministers ◽  
Foreign Ministry ◽  
Soviet Historiography

The article examines the main directions of activity and forms of interaction between the USSR, the Ukrainian SSR and the Belarusian SSR in the UN and its specialized institutions during the years of perestroika (1985 - 1991). To disclose the topic, materials from the journal “International Affair” were used (reviews of the USSR Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the foreign policy of the USSR, articles by the foreign ministers of the Union republics, primarily Ukraine and Belarus), book and journal publications of Union / Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian scientists, documents of the United Nations and foreign policy of the USSR, the Ukrainian SSR and the Belarusian SSR. The author’s conscious emphasis on the union level reflects the real situation in relations between the Union Center and the republics in the Soviet federation during the perestroika period, when these relations rapidly evolved from the foreign policy dictate of the Center to greater autonomy of the republics in the international arena, which ultimately has led to the collapse of the USSR and the proclamation of independence all union republics. The article analyzes such issues as the new approach of the Soviet Union to the UN in the years of perestroika, the formation of new relations between the Union republics and the Center, diplomatic cooperation of Soviet delegations and representatives of socialist countries in the UN, Belarusian initiatives at the 45th session of the UN General Assembly (1990). During the years of perestroika, the Soviet leadership and the union Foreign Ministry did a tremendous job of clearing the rubble of the Cold War, developing broad international cooperation and integration the USSR into the world economy. The Belarusian and Ukrainian diplomatic services have made a significant contribution to this activity within the framework of the UN and its specialized agencies and have received much broader opportunities for realizing the national interests and needs of their peoples within the framework of radically renewed relations between the Union Center and the republics. The article is one of the first attempts in post-Soviet historiography to investigate the activities of the USSR, the Ukrainian SSR and the BSSR in the UN and its specialized institutions during the period of perestroika

Finlandization Is Not a Gurse Word

Worldview ◽  
1973 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-21
Author(s):  
Anne Fried
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Western Europe ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Senior Editor ◽  
The World

Senior editor Arnaud de Borchgrave of Newsweek writes (July 10,1972):Today, Western Europe is a collection of nations united only in disunity. Within the last month, I have spoken with more than a dozen of the top foreign policy planners in Europe. Never before have I seen them so gloomy; never before haye I heard so much talk about Europe's confusion and disarray. “The spectacle we are presenting to the world,” one expert told me, “is truly lamentable.” It is more than lamentable; it is highly dangerous. For Western Europe faces the threat of “Finlandization”— which is to say, of finding itself effectively dominated, so far as foreign affairs are concerned, by the Soviet Union.

The President’s Foreign Affairs Power

1989 ◽  
Vol 83 (4) ◽  
pp. 750-757 ◽  
Author(s):  
Phillip R. Trimble
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Trade Restrictions ◽  
War Powers ◽  
Arms Sales ◽  
Imperial Presidency ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Legislative Veto

In the wake of Vietnam and Watergate, Congress set out to attack the imperial Presidency and to recapture its “historic constitutional role” in foreign policy. The tools of congressional activism included the National Commitments Resolution, the War Powers Resolution, the Case Act, the legislative veto over arms sales and nuclear exports, trade restrictions aimed at the Soviet Union and regulation of intelligence activities. In response, Presidents Carter and Reagan charged that Congress was invading presidential prerogatives. Joined by former executive branch officials and academic commentators, they saw an imperial Congress and believed the solution was a strengthened Presidency.

scholarly journals THE CULTURAL COMPONENT OF DIPLOMATIC RECEPTIONS IN THE USSR (1941–1945)

10.23856/4223 ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (5) ◽  
pp. 174-180
Author(s):  
Oksana Zakharova
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Soviet Culture ◽  
Charles De Gaulle ◽  
Communicative Functions ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
History Of ◽  
Cultural Component ◽  
Concert Programs

An important component of the foreign policy activity of state, public and political figures is participation in official government receptions that have informative and communicative functions. The repertoire policy of concert programs of diplomatic receptions built in such a way not only to inform about state priorities in the field of culture, but also to create a special socio-cultural environment conducive to constructive communication. The researcher analyzed the content of concert programs of government receptions, which organized during the visits to the Soviet Union by W. Churchill, Charles de Gaulle, I.B. Tito. The researcher describes a festive reception at the Reception House of the People’s Commissariat for Foreign Affairs on Spiridonovka in Moscow on November 7, 1943, which organized in honor of the anniversary of the October Revolution, with the participation of the diplomatic corps, political and military elite, literary and art workers. Studying the Soviet diplomatic protocol during this period expands our knowledge not only in the field of the history of diplomatic relations, but also allows us to judge the peculiarities of the development of Soviet culture, its dependence on the tastes of the leaders and party ideology. The materials of the Foreign Policy Archive of the Russian Federation (Fund 057 – “Protocol Department”) used as sources.

scholarly journals Russia’s Foreign Policy Evolution in the New Balkan Landscape

2020 ◽  
Vol 56 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 179-199
Author(s):  
Ekaterina Entina ◽  
Alexander Pivovarenko
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Regional Security ◽  
Southeast Europe ◽  
The Balkans ◽  
Current Trends ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
The Difference

The article reflects on the issue of the foreign policy strategy of modern Russia in the Balkans region. One of the most significant aspects of this problem is the difference in views between Russia and the West. Authors show how different interpretations of the events in former Yugoslavia in the 1990s and the beginning of the 2000s predetermined the sense of mutual suspicion and mistrust which spread to other regions such as the post-Soviet space. Exploring differences between the Russian and the Western (Euro-Atlantic) views on the current matters, authors draw attention to fundamental differences in terminology: while the Western narrative promotes more narrow geographical and political definitions (such as the Western Balkan Six), traditional Russian experts are more inclined to wider or integral definitions such as “the Balkans” and “Central and Southeast Europe”. Meanwhile none of these terms are applicable for analysis of the current trends such as the growing transit role of the Balkans region and its embedding in the European regional security architecture. Therefore, a new definition is needed to overcome the differences in vision and better understand significant recent developments in the region. Conceptualizing major foreign policy events in Central and Southeast Europe during the last three decades (the 1990s, 2000s and 2010s), authors demonstrate the significance of differences in tools and methods between the Soviet Union and the modern Russia. Permanent need for adaptation to changing political and security context led to inconsistence in Russian Balkan policy in the 1990s. Nevertheless, Russia was able to preserve an integral vision of the region and even to elaborate new transregional constructive projects, which in right political circumstances may promote stability and become beneficial for both Russia and the Euro-Atlantic community.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document