Pub Date : 2024-03-22DOI: 10.46272/2587-8476-2023-14-4-7-10
S. Markedonov
.
.
{"title":"Temple or Workshop? The Role of Natural Environmental Factors in International Relations","authors":"S. Markedonov","doi":"10.46272/2587-8476-2023-14-4-7-10","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.46272/2587-8476-2023-14-4-7-10","url":null,"abstract":"<jats:p>.</jats:p>","PeriodicalId":506402,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Analytics","volume":" 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140387040","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 : 2023-12-10DOI: 10.46272/2587-8476-2023-14-3-142-156
A. O. Tsatsurin
Donald Trump’s victory in the 2016 presidential election intensifi ed the divide within American society and the political climate in Washington, causing a signifi cant impact on the relationship between Moscow and Washington. Despite the US political system overcoming the challenges faced during Trump’s presidency, there was also a surge in tensions between the US and Russia. The deterioration of bilateral relations can be attributed to the dysfunctional interagency communication channels and the tightening of sanctions through the CAATSA law. Moscow ultimately shifted its stance from aspiring to normalization to recognizing the likelihood of military-political confrontation. This article presents a hypothesis that comprehensively explains the factors contributing to this shift. The hypothesis underscores the lack of coherence among American political leaders, as four unique interest groups – President Trump, Republican hawks, oppositional bureaucrats, and Democratic Congress members – all contribute to shaping US policy toward Russia. Each group advances its specifi c objectives, sometimes joining forces to bypass the president’s policies. Consequently, a “split subject” phenomenon emerges in US-Russian aff airs. The author concludes that the lack of constructive dialogue with Washington during Trump’s presidency was due to the “split subject.” The victory of J. Biden in the 2020 elections and the alignment of American bipartisan elites amid the Russian-Ukrainian confl ict temporarily shifted this phenomenon to the background. Nevertheless, the author raises the question of whether this “cleavage” might reemerge if Trump or his close associates win the 2024 US presidential election.
{"title":"Understanding the Escalation статьи in U.S.-Russian Relations during the D. Trump Era: Unpacking the “Split Subject” Phenomenon","authors":"A. O. Tsatsurin","doi":"10.46272/2587-8476-2023-14-3-142-156","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.46272/2587-8476-2023-14-3-142-156","url":null,"abstract":"Donald Trump’s victory in the 2016 presidential election intensifi ed the divide within American society and the political climate in Washington, causing a signifi cant impact on the relationship between Moscow and Washington. Despite the US political system overcoming the challenges faced during Trump’s presidency, there was also a surge in tensions between the US and Russia. The deterioration of bilateral relations can be attributed to the dysfunctional interagency communication channels and the tightening of sanctions through the CAATSA law. Moscow ultimately shifted its stance from aspiring to normalization to recognizing the likelihood of military-political confrontation. This article presents a hypothesis that comprehensively explains the factors contributing to this shift. The hypothesis underscores the lack of coherence among American political leaders, as four unique interest groups – President Trump, Republican hawks, oppositional bureaucrats, and Democratic Congress members – all contribute to shaping US policy toward Russia. Each group advances its specifi c objectives, sometimes joining forces to bypass the president’s policies. Consequently, a “split subject” phenomenon emerges in US-Russian aff airs. The author concludes that the lack of constructive dialogue with Washington during Trump’s presidency was due to the “split subject.” The victory of J. Biden in the 2020 elections and the alignment of American bipartisan elites amid the Russian-Ukrainian confl ict temporarily shifted this phenomenon to the background. Nevertheless, the author raises the question of whether this “cleavage” might reemerge if Trump or his close associates win the 2024 US presidential election.","PeriodicalId":506402,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Analytics","volume":"3 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139184581","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 : 2023-12-09DOI: 10.46272/2587-8476-2023-14-3-58-73
E. D. Pronyakina
In the modern world, migration crises are likely to become commonplace. Denmark, Norway and Sweden are countries that attract migrants from both European and non-European countries. Today they face the diffi cult task of developing a common migration policy, which is hindered by a number of reasons: economic, ideological and political. The article attempts to assess the prospects for cooperation between the Scandinavian countries on migration issues in the near future. Based on the provisions of the Copenhagen School of Security, the author examines mass migration through the prism of the risks it poses to the culturally homogeneous societies of Denmark, Norway and Sweden, to the unique Scandinavian model of the welfare state and to Nordic Co-operation. Comparing the Nordic countries’ approaches to migration management, the author concludes that they are united by the excessive involvement of the state in the processes of adaptation and integration of migrants. Despite the fact that the migration policies of the three countries have undergone signifi cant changes since 2016, the emphasis is still on the management of quantitative indicators (through the issuance of residence permits or deportation) rather than on the creation of social partnerships between migrants and natives. In Danish, Norwegian and even Swedish society, the idea of the need to promote “right” (European) immigration and limit “wrong” (foreign cultural) immigration prevails. There is a situation in which the main integration eff orts are directed at those groups of immigrants who are already suffi ciently integrated. Non-European migrants, regardless of their professional qualifi cations or personal qualities, are still perceived as a threat to Nordic identity.
{"title":"“The Wrong Migration:” The Problem of Managing Migration Flows in the Nordic Countries Politics","authors":"E. D. Pronyakina","doi":"10.46272/2587-8476-2023-14-3-58-73","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.46272/2587-8476-2023-14-3-58-73","url":null,"abstract":"In the modern world, migration crises are likely to become commonplace. Denmark, Norway and Sweden are countries that attract migrants from both European and non-European countries. Today they face the diffi cult task of developing a common migration policy, which is hindered by a number of reasons: economic, ideological and political. The article attempts to assess the prospects for cooperation between the Scandinavian countries on migration issues in the near future. Based on the provisions of the Copenhagen School of Security, the author examines mass migration through the prism of the risks it poses to the culturally homogeneous societies of Denmark, Norway and Sweden, to the unique Scandinavian model of the welfare state and to Nordic Co-operation. Comparing the Nordic countries’ approaches to migration management, the author concludes that they are united by the excessive involvement of the state in the processes of adaptation and integration of migrants. Despite the fact that the migration policies of the three countries have undergone signifi cant changes since 2016, the emphasis is still on the management of quantitative indicators (through the issuance of residence permits or deportation) rather than on the creation of social partnerships between migrants and natives. In Danish, Norwegian and even Swedish society, the idea of the need to promote “right” (European) immigration and limit “wrong” (foreign cultural) immigration prevails. There is a situation in which the main integration eff orts are directed at those groups of immigrants who are already suffi ciently integrated. Non-European migrants, regardless of their professional qualifi cations or personal qualities, are still perceived as a threat to Nordic identity.","PeriodicalId":506402,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Analytics","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139184892","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：