DAMPAK PAKTA PERTAHANAN TRILATERAL AUKUS TERHADAP KONDISI REGIONAL INDO-PASIFIK

This article was compiled to discuss the AUKUS Trilateral Defense Pact which is a collective security effort taken from the aggressiveness appointed by China in the Indo-Pacific region. There have been a variety of positive and negative responses from Australia from countries in the region, particularly China, which views the defense pact as a very responsible threat and an open challenge to their growing influence in the Indo-Pacific. This discussion is important because AUKUS is considered to be very detrimental to regional peace and security, and endangers efforts to destroy nuclear weapons, although it can be considered that this agreement will be a decisive step taken to take predatory tendencies from China. On the purpose of AUKUS and the reasons why Australia is more concerned with security than what is examined in this article, considering the ownership of supported vessels will support Australia's understanding to carry out longer patrols to maintain the Indo-Pacific security conditions that are often caused by the presence of a strong Chinese military in the area. AUKUS will be an important action in building the foundation that becomes a barrier for China to stop confronting other countries, commit violations at the borders of the Indo- Pacific region, and as a retaliation for aggressive actions against several countries in the region.

A versatile organisation: Mapping the military's core roles in a changing security environment

What roles are military institutions expected to play in today's rapidly changing security environment? How are they supposed to interact with the society they are tasked to protect? These questions have been posed by classical military sociologists as well as by a newer generation of scholars. Yet so far, a comprehensive mapping of the military's potential roles in contemporary society is missing. In this article we contribute to an update of this debate by providing a categorisation of the different roles and tasks that the military institution plays in current industrialised democratic states. We identify three core roles, each divided into subroles, by drawing on an extensive reading of 70 National White Papers and Security Strategies from 37 OECD member states: (collective) defence, collective security, and aid to the nation. We analyse how these roles and tasks influence recent configurations in civil-military relations. This study thereby contributes with: (1) a useful illustration of the military's shifting roles and tasks in contemporary society; (2) increased understandings of how the different roles impact civil-military relations and related to this; and (3) a practical starting point for further analyses of the military organisation's internal challenges related to its, at times, contradictory roles.

The German-Soviet Non-aggression Pact of 23 August 1939. Its Meaning and Significance

Все 1930-е годы Советский Союз прилагал значительные усилия для создания системы коллективной безопасности в Европе и заслона на пути гитлеровской агрессии, но правящие круги Великобритании, Франции и Италии, подписав с Германией позорное Мюнхенское соглашение, свели их на нет. Неудачей закончились и переговоры военных представителей Англии, Франции и СССР, проходившие в Москве в августе 1939 года. Западные партнеры затягивали эти переговоры, одновременно пытаясь за спиной СССР договориться с Берлином. Дальнейшее затягивание бесплодных переговоров грозило нашей стране опасностью оказаться перед угрозой войны с объединенным фронтом западных стран. В своих намерениях создать систему коллективной безопасности в Европе советское правительство столкнулось с саботажем правящих кругов Англии и Франции и было вынуждено дать согласие на приезд в Москву фон Риббентропа для ведения переговоров о заключении Пакта о ненападении. Германский министр, в отличие от англо-французских переговорщиков, имел полномочия для подписания необходимых документов. 23 августа 1939 года он и В. М. Молотов подписали Пакт о ненападении. На принятие такого решения оказала влияние и угроза войны на два фронта: в это время на востоке, в районе реки Халхин-Гол, шли ожесточенные бои, которые могли перерасти в полномасштабную войну с Японией. Договор о ненападении между Германией и СССР дал возможность выиграть время для укрепления обороны страны и ослабил единство агрессивного фашистско-милитаристского блока. С нападением Германии на Польшу и началом Второй мировой войны договор не связан. Не нарушал он и норм международного права. During the 1930s, the Soviet Union did its best to build a collective security system in Europe in order to prevent the spread of the Nazi menace. However, the ruling circles of Great Britain, France and Italy nullified the efforts by signing the ignoble Munich Agreement. The military negotiations between England, France and the USSR that were held in Moscow in August 1939 were a dismal failure. The western partners delayed the negotiations trying to reach an agreement with Berlin behind the back of the Soviet Union. Further delay threatened to put Russia in a position when it had to oppose a united western front. Trying to build a collective security system in Europe, the Soviet government had to handle the sabotage campaign launched by the ruling circles of England and France and had to accept the arrival of the German Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop in Moscow to sign a non-aggression pact. Unlike British and French ministers, the German minister was authorised to sign such documents. On 23 August 1939, J. von Ribbentrop and V. M. Molotov signed the non-aggression pact. The decision was taken under a two-front military threat (there were outbursts of fierce fighting near the Khalkhin-Gol river, which could escalate into a full-scale confrontation with Japan. The German-Soviet non-aggression pact gave the USSR a chance to enhance its defence and diminished the aggressive efforts of fascist militarists. The pact cannot be treated as violation of international law. It is in no way related to the German invasion of Poland preceding World War II.

Networks of Threats: Interconnection, Interaction, Intermediation

The rapidly changing global security environment requires to constantly adapt our understanding of threats. The findings of this paper confirm that threats interact with each other on three levels. Security, conflict, war, and strategic studies converge to build a new qualitative theoretical framework for threat analysis. Shaping the global security environment, threats communicate on three levels. Firstly, the interconnection of agents with similar ideological and/or strategic motivations connects threats. Secondly, interaction exacerbates incidental threats through cooperation, competition, and convergence. Thirdly, intermediation occurs between antagonistic threats trying to achieve common intermediary objectives. These networks are driven by agents maximizing their impact and reveals the autonomization and socialization of threats. Tackling these networks requires a global approach and the mobilization of collective security.

Indivisible Security and Collective Security Concepts: Implications for Russia’s Relations with the West

The indivisible security principle was first set out in the 1975 Helsinki Final Act and since then has been included in numerous international treaties and national strategic documents. However, the concept remains ambiguous and has not received due attention. The collective security concept has in turn been studied extensively by researchers who represent different paradigms and who have come up with diverse understandings of the term. This article adds to the ongoing conceptualisation of collective security and indivisible security and considers the implications of both concepts for European and global security arrangements in the context of Russia’s relations with the West. First, I analyse the history of the indivisible security and collective security concepts and briefly review relevant literature. Further, I come up with my conceptualisation of both notions, illustrating the theoretical claims with the case of Russia’s relations with NATO and EU countries. Building on this analysis, I assess the implications of both approaches for European and global security. I conclude that the international system cannot solely rely on either collective security or indivisible security and state the need for a middle-ground approach based on the decoupling/compartmentalisation of different policy areas.

Foreign Policy of North Macedonia and Regional Security in the Balkans: Problems and Prospects

The article focuses on identifying factors that influenced the foreign policy of the Macedonian state. In the first years after the collapse of the socialistic Yugoslavia, most of the emerging countries, including Macedonia, defined their development direction towards NATO and the EU, since the war in the Balkans required each republic to enter as soon as possible under the wing of a large international organization. On the way to the entry of North Macedonia into the EU and NATO, obstacles arose in the form of controversial issues in relations with neighbors. Thus, the foreign policy of the Macedonian state was designed to resolve conflicts with its neighbors, given the regional context. The settlement of local Balkan problems after 1999 contributed to some stabilization of the situation in the region. Achieving security in the Balkans has been and continues to be inextricably linked with the need for the region to join NATO, under whose auspices it is possible to create a collective security system. Moreover, the region faces new problems and challenges in the export of extremism from the Middle East and the socio-economic instability caused by the influx of refugees from Syria.