Is Russia a “good CBSS citizen”?

This study examines Russia’s policies towards and within the Councilof the Baltic Sea States in the aftermath of the Ukrainian and other internationalcrises. More specifically, this paper analyses Russia’s interest in andexpectations from the CBSS, as well as Moscow’s institutional behaviour in theCouncil. The CBSS is viewed by Russia as both a centrepiece and cornerstoneof the regional governance system. Moscow also sees the CBSS as an importanttool for overcoming the politico-diplomatic isolation where Russia founditself with the start of the Ukrainian crisis. With the help of the CBSS, it retainsits ability to influence socioeconomic, political, environmental, and humanitariandevelopments in the Baltic Sea region. Russia supported the Council’sthree long-term priority areas: a regional identity, a sustainable and prosperousregion, and a safe and secure region. Russia favoured further the Council’sinstitutionalization and strengthening of its role in the regional governancesystem. Despite the fact that Russia’s relations with other CBSS member-statesremain tense and that Moscow does not always manage to use the Councilto promote its interests in the region, the CBSS is still seen by Russia as animportant platform for regional cooperation.

The (in-) effectiveness of international law: A critical analysis of the rational choice theory in the light of the Ukrainian crisis 2014

<p>The aim of this research paper is to explore the role and content of the rational choice theory in international law and to critically analyse this theory in the light of the current Ukrainian crisis: Does the Ukrainian crisis 2014 prove rational choice theorists right? Can Russia’s military intervention in Crimea and the annexation of this region be seen as the failure of the UN Charter and therefore, as an evidence for the ineffectiveness of international law? Is international law effective at all? It will be argued that the rational choice theory cannot be seen as proven right in the light of the Ukrainian crisis 2014: Although, with regard to Russia’s unlawful military intervention in Crimea, the current crisis might at first glance be considered as validating the rational choice theory and the general ineffectiveness of international law, there is as well some evidence to be found in the actions and reactions of Russia and other nation-states and institutions from which one can deduce that international law does influence states’ behaviours, that states are not merely acting out of self-interest but also out of international legal obligations and that thus the current crisis may rather serve as an example of the (overall) effectiveness of international law.</p>

The (in-) effectiveness of international law: A critical analysis of the rational choice theory in the light of the Ukrainian crisis 2014

<p>The aim of this research paper is to explore the role and content of the rational choice theory in international law and to critically analyse this theory in the light of the current Ukrainian crisis: Does the Ukrainian crisis 2014 prove rational choice theorists right? Can Russia’s military intervention in Crimea and the annexation of this region be seen as the failure of the UN Charter and therefore, as an evidence for the ineffectiveness of international law? Is international law effective at all? It will be argued that the rational choice theory cannot be seen as proven right in the light of the Ukrainian crisis 2014: Although, with regard to Russia’s unlawful military intervention in Crimea, the current crisis might at first glance be considered as validating the rational choice theory and the general ineffectiveness of international law, there is as well some evidence to be found in the actions and reactions of Russia and other nation-states and institutions from which one can deduce that international law does influence states’ behaviours, that states are not merely acting out of self-interest but also out of international legal obligations and that thus the current crisis may rather serve as an example of the (overall) effectiveness of international law.</p>

Anattempt to rebuild the world "in the American way"

Trump’s foreign policy was controversial, resulting in division into its supporters and adversaries both at national and international levels. Donald Trump managed to be flexible in relations with the Legislative, ignoring the democratic majority in the House of Representatives. However, it was possible only before the Covid-19 pandemic. Donald Trump’s foreign policy prioritized American capital that determined US relations with the EU, Canada, and Latin America. As for relations with Russia, they were defined by the Ukrainian crisis. Disarmament is still a cornerstone in Russian American relations. The US has complicated relations with countries in Latin America, the Middle East, and the Persian Gulf despite all efforts. The UN’s reform and the Security Council, where the three great powers primarily make decisions, are still questioned. The US divides Europe into three parts; Western Europe, Eastern Europe, and Russia with Belarus. These Europes have different views on US foreign policy. Republican administration aimed at the expansion of the national power and provision of global leadership. However, the implementation methods were questionable and led to some unpleasant consequences for the US allies. Some of them decided to wait, some prepared for the worst, some tried to adapt to Trump’s policy since it reflected the long-term changes of the US standing in the world regardless of the party or the president. As a result, such policy led to the defeat of the Republicans and brought Joe Biden to power.

THE SECURITY OF THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA IN THE CONTEXT OF THE RUSSIAN-UKRAINIAN CRISIS

The crisis in Ukraine in early 2014 marked a turning point in the history of international relations. A number of specialists in the field of political science have sought to explain the reasons for the occurrence of such events in the 21st century and what implications they may have for the global security system, especially in the regional one. This article analyzes the impact of the Russian-Ukrainian crisis on the security of the Republic of Moldova.

“Russian Bear” in the Spanish-Language Media Discourse

The article examines the role of the bear metaphor in the Spanish-language political discourse. The relevance of the study is due, firstly, to the intensification of cooperation between Russia and Latin American countries, the effectiveness of which can be influenced by stereotypes and political symbols. Secondly, the growing popularity of the use of zoomorphic metaphors by the mass media. One of the unofficial symbols of Russia, which is often addressed by both traditional media and social media, is the bear. The Russian Bear metaphor is now widely used in both Russian and foreign periodicals and cartoons. The purpose of this research is to identify the specifics of the representation of the image of Russia as a bear in the Ibero-American political mass-media discourse. The source for the analysis is a Spanish-language media discourse (cases: the 2014 Ukrainian crisis, the Venezuelan crisis, Russias military operation in Syria, Russias interference in the elections in Mexico). The scientific novelty of the study is that for the first time in the Russian-language scientific literature, the features of the use of the bear metaphor by Latin American media and social media are examined. The author concludes that the metaphor Russian Bear is used both in the internal political symbolic struggle and in the foreign policy discourse. The specifics of the use of the bear metaphor in Latin America are mainly determined by political orientations: for example, the left traditionally considers Russia as an ally, appealing to such meanings of the bear metaphor as strength, justice, and the ability to become a defender against aggressors. In turn, their opponents use a bear metaphor to label left-wing politicians as traitors to the national interest. In this context, the image of a Bear serves as a symbolic border guard. The bear metaphor can be used to create an image of an ally and defender, as well as an enemy. The Ibero-American media turn to the bear metaphor mainly in the headlines and subheadings of materials devoted to Russian foreign policy, which allows them to draw readers attention to the topic under consideration.

The United Kingdom against Russia’s attempts to maintain the zones of influence on the example of the Ukrainian crisis

The subject of the paper are the United Kingdom’s actions against Russia's attempts to maintain its zones of influence, based on the example of the Ukrainian crisis. The introduction consists of a synthetic outline of the geopolitical rivalry between Russia and Great Britain. The next section discusses the attitude of the United Kingdom towards Russia’s attempts to maintain its zones of influence in the 21st century. The main section of the paper focuses on the United Kingdom’s actions against Russia’s military policy in Ukraine. The main thesis of the paper assumes that during the Ukrainian crisis, the UK has taken the most far-reaching measures so far to oppose Russia’s attempts to maintain zones of influence. The consequence of this is a significant deterioration in Russian-British relations due to the Ukrainian crisis. The leading paradigm is structural realism. The method of text source analysis was used in the paper.

Вопрос национального единства в современной России: возможен ли единый национальный миф?

The author, relying on the concept of nations as imagined communities, sharing the existence of the scientific concepts of “ethnic” and “civil” nations, considers the possibility of the emergence of a single national myth, which could become the most important construct in the formation of national unity in a multinational country. Based on various legislative initiatives, amendments to the Constitution of Russia, considering certain aspects of historical policy in Russia, the author concludes that after 2014, on the background of the Ukrainian crisis, the Syrian crisis, US and European Union’s sanctions pressure and political confrontation with the West, the Russian authorities situationally started the mobilisation of public opinion. This policy is capable of producing results only in the short term. Achievement of national unity based on the single national myth, acceptable to most of the Russian society, will require more thorough work and delicate inclusion in the information space, as well as in the educational programs of secondary and higher education.