Pub Date : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.20542/2307-1494-2022-1-121-132
A. Zagorskii
At the beginning of the Ukraine crisis in 2014, the OSCE acted unexpectedly promptly for an organization deeply divided for years. Although the revitalization of its relatively autonomous institutions and mechanisms (that did not require prior consensus) failed to produce uncontested evidence to inform collective decisions, the deployment of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission raised the threshold for resuming violence. The Normandy group (France, Germany, Russia, and Ukraine) became the main platform for generating political solutions. The Trilateral Contact Group (the special representative of the OSCE Chairperson, Russia, and Ukraine) proved instrumental for translating these solutions into practical measures. These activities fueled expectations of consolidation of the peace process in spite of the obstacles faced by the OSCE operations, such as their limited mandate, restrictions to the freedom of movement, and inability to verify the withdrawal of weapons or enforce ceasefire and disengagement agreements. However, the ultimate failure of the Minsk peace process in early 2022 can hardly be attributed to these shortcomings. It was the increasing disagreement between Russia and Ukraine on a number of central issues of the peace process, such as the sequence of steps to implement the agreed measures or the engagement of the separatist regions in talks with Kiev, that undermined political process, adversely affected the OSCE operations, and eroded the fragile consensus. Despite the temporary revitalization of the political process in late 2019 and in 2020, the escalation of the situation around Ukraine in 2021 – early 2022 degenerated into a direct military intervention by Russia and resulted in the termination of all consensus-based OSCE operations in Ukraine.
{"title":"The OSCE, Ukraine, and peace process","authors":"A. Zagorskii","doi":"10.20542/2307-1494-2022-1-121-132","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.20542/2307-1494-2022-1-121-132","url":null,"abstract":"At the beginning of the Ukraine crisis in 2014, the OSCE acted unexpectedly promptly for an organization deeply divided for years. Although the revitalization of its relatively autonomous institutions and mechanisms (that did not require prior consensus) failed to produce uncontested evidence to inform collective decisions, the deployment of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission raised the threshold for resuming violence. The Normandy group (France, Germany, Russia, and Ukraine) became the main platform for generating political solutions. The Trilateral Contact Group (the special representative of the OSCE Chairperson, Russia, and Ukraine) proved instrumental for translating these solutions into practical measures. These activities fueled expectations of consolidation of the peace process in spite of the obstacles faced by the OSCE operations, such as their limited mandate, restrictions to the freedom of movement, and inability to verify the withdrawal of weapons or enforce ceasefire and disengagement agreements. However, the ultimate failure of the Minsk peace process in early 2022 can hardly be attributed to these shortcomings. It was the increasing disagreement between Russia and Ukraine on a number of central issues of the peace process, such as the sequence of steps to implement the agreed measures or the engagement of the separatist regions in talks with Kiev, that undermined political process, adversely affected the OSCE operations, and eroded the fragile consensus. Despite the temporary revitalization of the political process in late 2019 and in 2020, the escalation of the situation around Ukraine in 2021 – early 2022 degenerated into a direct military intervention by Russia and resulted in the termination of all consensus-based OSCE operations in Ukraine.","PeriodicalId":34887,"journal":{"name":"Puti k miru i bezopasnosti","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67687062","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.20542/2307-1494-2022-1-47-66
B. Coppieters
Sovereignty is a key concept in discourses regarding the disputes over the status of Abkhazia, Northern Cyprus, and Taiwan. It helps the conflicting parties to communicate their positions regarding their preferred status of the contested territory and indicates the limits that negotiations are not permitted to transgress. It frames a parent state’s policy of nonrecognition, intended to prevent permanent separation, and a contested state’s policy of recognition to prevent its own subordination. In defending their claims, the conflicting parties do not enjoy equal conditions. The contested state’s lack of recognition weakens its position in the international order. The parent state will make use of this asymmetry at the international level to weaken the contested state’s claims to sovereignty. The contested state, by contrast, will try to achieve legal recognition through international agreements. This is possible with regard to competences that it exercises as a de facto territorial authority. This means that the control a contested state exercises at the domestic level is transferred to the international level, to strengthen its claims to sovereignty. The distinction between domestic and international sovereignty is useful for analyzing these strategies and conflict dynamics. This article analyzes disputes over the status of a breakaway territory in terms of these two categories. In particular, it explores how nonrecognition policies by parent states and recognition policies by contested states at the international level affect the latter’s sovereignty at the domestic level.
{"title":"Domestic and international sovereignty: the disputes over the status of Abkhazia, Northern Cyprus, and Taiwan","authors":"B. Coppieters","doi":"10.20542/2307-1494-2022-1-47-66","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.20542/2307-1494-2022-1-47-66","url":null,"abstract":"Sovereignty is a key concept in discourses regarding the disputes over the status of Abkhazia, Northern Cyprus, and Taiwan. It helps the conflicting parties to communicate their positions regarding their preferred status of the contested territory and indicates the limits that negotiations are not permitted to transgress. It frames a parent state’s policy of nonrecognition, intended to prevent permanent separation, and a contested state’s policy of recognition to prevent its own subordination. In defending their claims, the conflicting parties do not enjoy equal conditions. The contested state’s lack of recognition weakens its position in the international order. The parent state will make use of this asymmetry at the international level to weaken the contested state’s claims to sovereignty. The contested state, by contrast, will try to achieve legal recognition through international agreements. This is possible with regard to competences that it exercises as a de facto territorial authority. This means that the control a contested state exercises at the domestic level is transferred to the international level, to strengthen its claims to sovereignty. The distinction between domestic and international sovereignty is useful for analyzing these strategies and conflict dynamics. This article analyzes disputes over the status of a breakaway territory in terms of these two categories. In particular, it explores how nonrecognition policies by parent states and recognition policies by contested states at the international level affect the latter’s sovereignty at the domestic level.","PeriodicalId":34887,"journal":{"name":"Puti k miru i bezopasnosti","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67687209","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.20542/2307-1494-2022-2-150-174
A. Lomanov
Mainland China’s policy towards Taiwan demonstrates a high degree of continuity. As new problems arise, new priorities are put forward. During Xi Jinping's tenure as China’s leader, the goal of reunifying the country has been proclaimed a necessary component of the national revival, while the search for a Taiwanese version of the “one country, two systems” model has been launched and the approach to independence supporters has become markedly tougher. Mainland China’s past hopes to achieve reunification primarily through Beijing’s material strength and prospects for economic integration are facing unforeseen obstacles, while political and cultural issues are becoming increasingly important. The reunification scenarios offered to Taiwan are increasingly rigid and are reduced to a choice between retaining limited powers in the case of a peaceful scenario or losing even those powers if military force is applied. Chinese experts continue to look for ways to facilitate rapprochement between the mainland’s and Taiwan’s societies to win over supporters of unification and to attract a wide range of opponents of independence. Meanwhile, Beijing is seriously concerned about the ongoing “de-Sinicization” of the Taiwanese identity. Mainland China has not yet learned how to project the Chinese cultural tradition outward, and its efforts to achieve social integration of Taiwan continue to focus on material incentives. Experts from the mainland China increasingly agree that Beijing’s old instruments of non-conflict rapprochement with the island are rapidly losing their effectiveness, while new mechanisms are slow to emerge. Mainland China’s politicians and experts are concerned about the prospect of irreversible changes in the identity of the island’s inhabitants and believe that it is unacceptable to postpone the reunification endlessly. 从统一到民族复兴：当前中国看待台湾问题的视角 中国政府对台政策具有高度连续性。随着形势的变化，中国政府对台政策有了新的首要目标。习近平执政后，国家统一上升为民族复兴的必要组成部分，同时开始积极探索“一国两制”的台湾方案，对台独支持者的态度明显变得更加强硬。中国大陆曾希望依靠物质实力和经济一体化促进两岸统一，现在这一可能面临难以预知的困难，而政治和文化问题变得越来越重要。大陆提供给台湾的统一方案越来越严格，其实质在于，在和平统一情况下，台湾当局可保留有限权力，而通过武力统一后，台湾将不会再拥有这些权力，台湾当局需在两者之间做出选择。中国专家学者继续寻求大陆与台湾社会和解的方式，以赢得统一派之心并吸引广泛的台独反对者。与此同时，北京对台湾岛内人群身份认同的持续“去中国化”深感震惊。中国大陆尚未学会如何将中国文化传统向外传播，其融入台湾社会的努力仍然继续集中在物质激励上。越来越多的中国专家认为，大陆使用的与该岛建立非冲突和解的旧工具正在迅速失效，而新机制的建立滞后。中国大陆的政界人士和专家学者担心岛内居民的身份认同可能发生不可逆转的变化，所以认为无休止地推迟两岸统一是不可接受的。
{"title":"From unification to national revival: China’s contemporary approach to the Taiwan problem","authors":"A. Lomanov","doi":"10.20542/2307-1494-2022-2-150-174","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.20542/2307-1494-2022-2-150-174","url":null,"abstract":"Mainland China’s policy towards Taiwan demonstrates a high degree of continuity. As new problems arise, new priorities are put forward. During Xi Jinping's tenure as China’s leader, the goal of reunifying the country has been proclaimed a necessary component of the national revival, while the search for a Taiwanese version of the “one country, two systems” model has been launched and the approach to independence supporters has become markedly tougher. Mainland China’s past hopes to achieve reunification primarily through Beijing’s material strength and prospects for economic integration are facing unforeseen obstacles, while political and cultural issues are becoming increasingly important. The reunification scenarios offered to Taiwan are increasingly rigid and are reduced to a choice between retaining limited powers in the case of a peaceful scenario or losing even those powers if military force is applied. Chinese experts continue to look for ways to facilitate rapprochement between the mainland’s and Taiwan’s societies to win over supporters of unification and to attract a wide range of opponents of independence. Meanwhile, Beijing is seriously concerned about the ongoing “de-Sinicization” of the Taiwanese identity. Mainland China has not yet learned how to project the Chinese cultural tradition outward, and its efforts to achieve social integration of Taiwan continue to focus on material incentives. Experts from the mainland China increasingly agree that Beijing’s old instruments of non-conflict rapprochement with the island are rapidly losing their effectiveness, while new mechanisms are slow to emerge. Mainland China’s politicians and experts are concerned about the prospect of irreversible changes in the identity of the island’s inhabitants and believe that it is unacceptable to postpone the reunification endlessly. 从统一到民族复兴：当前中国看待台湾问题的视角 中国政府对台政策具有高度连续性。随着形势的变化，中国政府对台政策有了新的首要目标。习近平执政后，国家统一上升为民族复兴的必要组成部分，同时开始积极探索“一国两制”的台湾方案，对台独支持者的态度明显变得更加强硬。中国大陆曾希望依靠物质实力和经济一体化促进两岸统一，现在这一可能面临难以预知的困难，而政治和文化问题变得越来越重要。大陆提供给台湾的统一方案越来越严格，其实质在于，在和平统一情况下，台湾当局可保留有限权力，而通过武力统一后，台湾将不会再拥有这些权力，台湾当局需在两者之间做出选择。中国专家学者继续寻求大陆与台湾社会和解的方式，以赢得统一派之心并吸引广泛的台独反对者。与此同时，北京对台湾岛内人群身份认同的持续“去中国化”深感震惊。中国大陆尚未学会如何将中国文化传统向外传播，其融入台湾社会的努力仍然继续集中在物质激励上。越来越多的中国专家认为，大陆使用的与该岛建立非冲突和解的旧工具正在迅速失效，而新机制的建立滞后。中国大陆的政界人士和专家学者担心岛内居民的身份认同可能发生不可逆转的变化，所以认为无休止地推迟两岸统一是不可接受的。","PeriodicalId":34887,"journal":{"name":"Puti k miru i bezopasnosti","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67687405","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.20542/2307-1494-2022-2-188-203
V. Kashin
New escalation of the Taiwan issue is a complex process, shaped by long-term trends in both the island’s internal politics and in the Sino-U.S. relations after 2017. The internal trends in Taiwan are making the very possibility of “peaceful reunification” with mainland China highly questionable for the foreseeable future. Each new electoral cycle in Taiwan was associated with a slide of the local politics towards separatism. Concurrently, the bipartisan anti-China consensus in the U.S. politics has resulted in the changing paradigm of the U.S. cooperation with Taipei and in dramatically intensified U.S.-Taiwan military and political cooperation. China, on the one hand, and Taiwan and the United States, on the other, are finding themselves in an escalation spiral, intensifying their military activities and toughening rhetoric. Each side attempts to reinforce its red lines, which, in turn, is seen as evidence of aggressive plans by its opponents. All sides are engaged in practical preparation for a potential military conflict in the Taiwan Strait. A devastating local war is quite probable within the next several years. 台湾2022年军事政治局势的恶化：原因和前景 台湾问题的新升级是一个复杂的过程。 这个过程受到2017年后台湾内政治和中美关系长期趋势的影响。 在可预见的未来，台湾与大陆和平统一的可能性非常值得怀疑。 台湾每一个新的选举周期逐渐走向分裂。 与此同时，美国政坛的两党反华共识导致美台合作范式发生变化，美台军事政治合作急剧加强。 中国 ， 台湾和美国发现自己处于升级螺旋中，他们加强了军事活动并加强了修辞。 每一方都试图加强其红线，而这反过来又被对手视为侵略性计划的证据。 各方都在为台海可能发生的军事冲突做实际准备。 未来几年很可能发生一场毁灭性的局部战争.
{"title":"The 2022 escalation of the military and political situation around Taiwan: causes and prospects for further evolution","authors":"V. Kashin","doi":"10.20542/2307-1494-2022-2-188-203","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.20542/2307-1494-2022-2-188-203","url":null,"abstract":"New escalation of the Taiwan issue is a complex process, shaped by long-term trends in both the island’s internal politics and in the Sino-U.S. relations after 2017. The internal trends in Taiwan are making the very possibility of “peaceful reunification” with mainland China highly questionable for the foreseeable future. Each new electoral cycle in Taiwan was associated with a slide of the local politics towards separatism. Concurrently, the bipartisan anti-China consensus in the U.S. politics has resulted in the changing paradigm of the U.S. cooperation with Taipei and in dramatically intensified U.S.-Taiwan military and political cooperation. China, on the one hand, and Taiwan and the United States, on the other, are finding themselves in an escalation spiral, intensifying their military activities and toughening rhetoric. Each side attempts to reinforce its red lines, which, in turn, is seen as evidence of aggressive plans by its opponents. All sides are engaged in practical preparation for a potential military conflict in the Taiwan Strait. A devastating local war is quite probable within the next several years. 台湾2022年军事政治局势的恶化：原因和前景 台湾问题的新升级是一个复杂的过程。 这个过程受到2017年后台湾内政治和中美关系长期趋势的影响。 在可预见的未来，台湾与大陆和平统一的可能性非常值得怀疑。 台湾每一个新的选举周期逐渐走向分裂。 与此同时，美国政坛的两党反华共识导致美台合作范式发生变化，美台军事政治合作急剧加强。 中国 ， 台湾和美国发现自己处于升级螺旋中，他们加强了军事活动并加强了修辞。 每一方都试图加强其红线，而这反过来又被对手视为侵略性计划的证据。 各方都在为台海可能发生的军事冲突做实际准备。 未来几年很可能发生一场毁灭性的局部战争.","PeriodicalId":34887,"journal":{"name":"Puti k miru i bezopasnosti","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67687432","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.20542/2307-1494-2022-2-280-281
T. Nguyen
Terrorism in Africa: New Trends and Frontiers. Eds. Glen Segell, Sergey Kostelyanets, and Hussein Solomon. – Moscow: Institute for African Studies; Haifa: University of Haifa, 2021. 194 p.
{"title":"Terrorism as an obstacle to Africa’s sustainable development","authors":"T. Nguyen","doi":"10.20542/2307-1494-2022-2-280-281","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.20542/2307-1494-2022-2-280-281","url":null,"abstract":"Terrorism in Africa: New Trends and Frontiers. Eds. Glen Segell, Sergey Kostelyanets, and Hussein Solomon. – Moscow: Institute for African Studies; Haifa: University of Haifa, 2021. 194 p.","PeriodicalId":34887,"journal":{"name":"Puti k miru i bezopasnosti","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67687019","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.20542/2307-1494-2022-2-62-81
I. Matveev
The crisis in Ukraine and Western sanctions against Russia have been causing severe damage to the food security at global, regional, and national levels. The Arab world has not been an exemption: disruption of logistic chains in the Black Sea region and increasing volatility of grain prices, aggravated by demographic boom, the global warming, and water deficit, generate high risks of producing new hunger hotspots and the “Arab Spring 2.0.”. Meanwhile, the United States and its allies are trying to benefit from growing challenges in the Middle East and North Africa, employing of the “carrot and stick” tactics. While the compromise “grain deal” has been temporarily extended, it does not solve the problem, but only somewhat alleviates it. However, despite all the difficulties and the deep differences between Western and Russian interests, including in this region, Russia can even more significantly contribute to enhancing food security of the Arab countries, acting on the basis of equal and mutually beneficial cooperation with the Arab world.
{"title":"Russia’s role in ensuring food security of Arab countries: challenges, opportunities, and prospects","authors":"I. Matveev","doi":"10.20542/2307-1494-2022-2-62-81","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.20542/2307-1494-2022-2-62-81","url":null,"abstract":"The crisis in Ukraine and Western sanctions against Russia have been causing severe damage to the food security at global, regional, and national levels. The Arab world has not been an exemption: disruption of logistic chains in the Black Sea region and increasing volatility of grain prices, aggravated by demographic boom, the global warming, and water deficit, generate high risks of producing new hunger hotspots and the “Arab Spring 2.0.”. Meanwhile, the United States and its allies are trying to benefit from growing challenges in the Middle East and North Africa, employing of the “carrot and stick” tactics. While the compromise “grain deal” has been temporarily extended, it does not solve the problem, but only somewhat alleviates it. However, despite all the difficulties and the deep differences between Western and Russian interests, including in this region, Russia can even more significantly contribute to enhancing food security of the Arab countries, acting on the basis of equal and mutually beneficial cooperation with the Arab world.","PeriodicalId":34887,"journal":{"name":"Puti k miru i bezopasnosti","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67687112","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.20542/2307-1494-2022-1-141-143
D. Mesta
Review of: Berg E., Kursani Sh. De Facto States and Land-for-Peace Agreements. London: Routledge, 2021
伯格，库尔萨尼，《事实上的国家和土地换和平协定》。伦敦:劳特利奇出版社，2021
{"title":"Trading land for peace between de facto and parent states?","authors":"D. Mesta","doi":"10.20542/2307-1494-2022-1-141-143","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.20542/2307-1494-2022-1-141-143","url":null,"abstract":"Review of: Berg E., Kursani Sh. De Facto States and Land-for-Peace Agreements. London: Routledge, 2021","PeriodicalId":34887,"journal":{"name":"Puti k miru i bezopasnosti","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67687134","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.20542/2307-1494-2022-2-276-279
V. Rosa
Borders and Conflicts in North and West Africa. Eds. Marie Trémolières, Olivier J. Walther, and Steven M. Radil. West African Studies. – Paris: OECD Publishing, 2022. 128 p.
{"title":"Mixed method analysis of violence in North and West Africa","authors":"V. Rosa","doi":"10.20542/2307-1494-2022-2-276-279","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.20542/2307-1494-2022-2-276-279","url":null,"abstract":"Borders and Conflicts in North and West Africa. Eds. Marie Trémolières, Olivier J. Walther, and Steven M. Radil. West African Studies. – Paris: OECD Publishing, 2022. 128 p.","PeriodicalId":34887,"journal":{"name":"Puti k miru i bezopasnosti","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67687502","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.20542/2307-1494-2022-1-137-140
J. Nowak
Review of: Potapkina V. Nation Building in Contested States: Comparative Insights from Kosovo, Transnistria, and Northern Cyprus. Stuttgart: Ibidem Verlag, 2020
{"title":"Building nations and identities in undefined spaces","authors":"J. Nowak","doi":"10.20542/2307-1494-2022-1-137-140","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.20542/2307-1494-2022-1-137-140","url":null,"abstract":"Review of: Potapkina V. Nation Building in Contested States: Comparative Insights from Kosovo, Transnistria, and Northern Cyprus. Stuttgart: Ibidem Verlag, 2020","PeriodicalId":34887,"journal":{"name":"Puti k miru i bezopasnosti","volume":"56 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67687124","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.20542/2307-1494-2022-2-234-244
V. Orlov, A. Yurk
The probability of a new great war in Europe, which was perceived as minimal in the 1990s 2010s, has seriously increased in 2022. Among numerous reasons for this were the nuclear risks associated with the highly ambiguous statements of the Ukrainian leadership, Poland’s desire to acquire American tactical nuclear weapons, and risks of the Russia U.S. nuclear war that increased with the further collapse of the arms control regime. Against this background, the revival of the long-forgotten idea of a nuclear weapon-free zone in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) could play a positive role in resolving this problem. The article raises terminological issues, discusses a potential territorial framework for such a zone, and provides a brief historical account of the issue. Four scenarios of regional developments in the field of nuclear non-proliferation are offered. Two scenarios provide for the creation of a nuclear free zone, one more involves the freezing the current situation, and the last one focuses on threats to non-proliferation regime in Central and Eastern Europe. In the end, conclusions are offered about the potential significance of such a zone for the settlement of the conflict in Ukraine, especially in connection with conventional arms control measures in Europe.
{"title":"Prospects for the establishment of nuclear weapon-free zone in Central and Eastern Europe","authors":"V. Orlov, A. Yurk","doi":"10.20542/2307-1494-2022-2-234-244","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.20542/2307-1494-2022-2-234-244","url":null,"abstract":"The probability of a new great war in Europe, which was perceived as minimal in the 1990s 2010s, has seriously increased in 2022. Among numerous reasons for this were the nuclear risks associated with the highly ambiguous statements of the Ukrainian leadership, Poland’s desire to acquire American tactical nuclear weapons, and risks of the Russia U.S. nuclear war that increased with the further collapse of the arms control regime. Against this background, the revival of the long-forgotten idea of a nuclear weapon-free zone in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) could play a positive role in resolving this problem. The article raises terminological issues, discusses a potential territorial framework for such a zone, and provides a brief historical account of the issue. Four scenarios of regional developments in the field of nuclear non-proliferation are offered. Two scenarios provide for the creation of a nuclear free zone, one more involves the freezing the current situation, and the last one focuses on threats to non-proliferation regime in Central and Eastern Europe. In the end, conclusions are offered about the potential significance of such a zone for the settlement of the conflict in Ukraine, especially in connection with conventional arms control measures in Europe.","PeriodicalId":34887,"journal":{"name":"Puti k miru i bezopasnosti","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67687467","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：