![Światowe przywództwo Ameryki w XXI wieku](/api/image/getbookcoverimage?id=document_cover-page-image_471592.jpg)
We kindly inform you that, as long as the subject affiliation of our 300.000+ articles is in progress, you might get unsufficient or no results on your third level or second level search. In this case, please broaden your search criteria.
This study analyses the context in which the Security Sector Reform (SSR) has taken place in Albania since the fall of the communist regime. It has been conceptualised in three main periods, based on the social, political and economic perspectives that featured each phase during the process of Security Sector Reform. In this perspective, the beginning of the first period coincides with the collapse of communist regime in 1991 and ends with the 1997 crisis. Although Albania was never involved in the armed conflict and border reshuffle that featured the Former Yugoslav countries during the 90s, it largely suffered from backwardness and isolation, a legacy from the Cold War. This period was mostly characterised by the establishment of first generation reforms: the establishment of new institutions, structures, and chains of responsibility for the security sector. Nonetheless the process of first generation reform was not nalised, due to the crisis in 19971 which led to the collapse of the government. This represents the beginning of the second period: from 1997 to 2000. The third and final period efforts, namely the period from 2000 until 2009, seem to be more benefiting and realistic for the country considering the pace of SSR, contributing in the consolidation of the security sector institutions and governance.
More...
Państwa zachodnie zaczynają wykazywać nadzwyczajną, nieraz graniczącą z nadwrażliwością, troskę o sprawy bezpieczeństwa. Mamy do czynienia z przyspieszoną ewolucją i rozbudową instytucji, a także instrumentów zapewniania bezpieczeństwa międzynarodowego. Państwa szybko zmieniają swe doktryny, stale tworząc nowe rodzaje sił zbrojnych i służb specjalnych, których zadaniem jest reagowanie na zmieniające się i coraz bardziej złożone zagrożenia ich bezpieczeństwa. Po zimnej wojnie ze szczególną siłą zaznacza się w tej sferze – nie zawsze pozytywna – rola biznesu, mediów i think tanków. Pojawia się też nowe, niepokojące zjawisko prywatyzacji bezpieczeństwa. To wszystko znajduje odzwierciedlenie w bogatej literaturze, niezliczonych monografiach, raportach, policy papers, często wartościowych, niekiedy jednak bałamutnych. W prezentowanej publikacji studenci politologii i stosunków międzynarodowych oraz eksperci i komentatorzy otrzymują po raz pierwszy w naszym kraju, syntetyczny podręcznik akademicki do studiowania bezpieczeństwa międzynarodowego, spełniający rygory gatunku. Książka została przygotowana przez pracowników Zakładu Studiów Strategicznych Instytutu Stosunków Międzynarodowych WDiNP Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. Zespół składa się z autorów mających za sobą bogatą praktykę w siłach zbrojnych, organach administracji państwowej odpowiedzialnych za bezpieczeństwo oraz świetnych, a przy tym młodych badaczy akademickich.
More...
Pretpostavke na kojima je počivala aktuelna međunarodna politika prema Bosni i Hercegovini i posljedična promjena stava od početka 2006. godine glavni su faktori u stvaranju sadašnjeg političkog i društvenog okruženja. Nespremnost da se održe i primijene dejtonski mehanizmi za provedbu i izvršavanje – OHR i EUFOR – te da se pređe na pristup ‘blage sile’ stvorili su okruženje u kojem nema pravila i u kojem se političari osjećaju slobodnim da bez ustezanja rade na ostvarivanju svojih neostvarenih ciljeva. Iako je jasno da sadašnji pristup ne funkcionira, nema kolektivne političke volje za preispitivanjem njegovih temelja. Rezultat takve situacije su sve veće podjele unutar Upravnog odbora Vijeća za provedbu mira između članova koji vjeruju da će instrumentarij EU-a za proširenje biti dovoljan da se spriječi daljnje pogoršanje situacije (Njemačka, Francuska, Italija, Španija, Rusija te same institucije EU-a) i onih koji su sve više skeptični i frustrirani zbog takvog pristupa (SAD, Velika Britanija, Turska, Japan, Kanada i povremeno Holandija).
More...
The proposal for “StratCom Terminology Improvement” came from the Netherlands, one of the founding member of the NATO StratCom COE, and was approved by the Steering Committee in December 2017. The Terminology Working Group held consultative sessions throughout 2018. Terminology projects are usually concerned with making communication within a specialized language community more efficient and minimizing misunderstandings. Improving StratCom terminology aims to unify different NATO agencies in their endeavors but also increase efficiency in planning and executing military (communications) operations. NATO is a multi-national organization with civilian and military personnel, working toward political and military objectives. A common language (in the broader sense) is one of the key success factors for effective Strategic Communications.
More...
If history teaches us what life is all about, and this is true, then books are testimonies assisting history to show to the next generations where we are and why we have made mistakes instructing us not to stumble twice upon the same obstacle. "Military Secret" is a testimony which came to existence by a concurrence of peculiar circumstances and thanks to my own aspiration to expose entirely and at any cost the position and the role of the top military brass in preservation of an insane regime, alien to both the Serbs and the Montenegrins, at the beginning of the 21st century. Having been drawn into the games of big security services, dragged out of anonymity and motivated by my personal hardships and suffering, but also thanks to good people from the military and the police, I was in a position, amongst other things, owing to kindness of other people, to influence, perhaps, certain currents of history in, judging by everything, now former Yugoslavia. I am aware of the fact that the state is grateful to an individual only while it needs him/her.
More...
In 2009, Serbia made necessary progress in defining its future as a European country. The measures taken by the Serbian Government in that direction opened its European perspective. This inevitably provoked adverse reactions by one part of the Serbian elite, which is feverishly defending its position and insisting on the greater-state national project. This specifically refers to its resistance to NATO membership, interpretation of the recent past and defense of Bosnia’s status quo. Regardless of the opening of its European perspective, Serbia is still torn between its wish to join the European family and a strong conservative bloc trying to preserve the model of a patriarchal and populist state. The aggravating factors are a total blockade of the economy, bad privatization, monopolistic status of tycoons and incapable leaders at all levels. A drag on development is also centralism that stubbornly resists any decentralization and regionalization, which are a prerequisite for democratization and the undertaking of responsibility at all levels. Serbia’s progress toward the European perspective also implies a more resolute internal transformation, involving the status of Vojvodina, change of the Constitution, decentralization and regionalization, status of minorities and reform of the country’s media space. This is a prerequisite for breaking away from Milošević’s legacy.
More...
“It is not easy to predict the future course of events, which will depend to a large extent on the overall political situation in the USSR” is the cautious evaluation of the confidential expert report for the North Atlantic Council in October 1989. In 1988‒1991, the relationship was fundamentally transformed between the Western alliance system led by the United States and the East European socialist bloc dominated by the Soviet Union. The military, political, cultural, and ideological confrontation – with the weakening of Moscow and the collapse of its empire – was replaced during a few months by a new type of cooperation of the parties separated previously by the Iron Curtain. The eight reports from the NATO Archives (formerly classified confidential), published in the present volume for the first time in English, illuminate the East European events of these four eventful years from the perspective of expert advisors of the alliance. How were these dramatic changes in Eastern Europe perceived and interpreted in Brussels?
More...
This second volume of Readings in European Security vividly reflects the continuing changes that profoundly affect the factors shaping the security of the European continent. For a historian in the future, thework undertaken by the CEPS-IISS European Security Forum since 2001will appear in sharp contrast to the sort of issues that were at the heart of security concerns during the 1970s and 1980s, dominated by East-West confrontation.This second volume of Readings in European Security contains the complete set of working papers commissioned by the CEPS–IISS European Security Forum in 2003 (Nos. 10-15), during a period of profound change in the international security environment. These papers illuminate the big issues in European security such as the recently unveiled European security strategy, pre-emptive military action and the future of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In-depth analysis is provided on Europe’s approach to regions such as Turkey and the Greater Middle East. Independent experts present EU, US and Russian viewpoints on each topic. Each set of papers is prefaced by an Introduction by the Chairman, François Heisbourg, Director of the Fondation pour la Recherche Stratégique in Paris.
More...
The Yemeni conflict has been witnessing essential information warfare and propaganda front. Since the beginning of the conflict, the Houthi movement has been aware of the importance of the internet. Notably, they avoid adopting an aggressive sectarian lexicon on social media. Instead, following drone and missile strikes, the Houthi-associated accounts frequently emphasize IRGC-assisted game-changing military capabilities. This focus seems to follow Iranian priorities in Yemen, namely promoting the militarized political movement and portraying it in a less sectarian but more patriotic and battle-hardened fashion. This approach likely emanates from the different characteristics of the Shia faith in Yemen compared with the rest of the Middle East.
More...
This book is based on papers presented at the conference. However, it is not a typical publication of academic conference proceedings because the topics are not completely congruent with those of the conference. Some lectures that could not be held due to travel restrictions related to the coronavirus pandemic were submitted as book contributions. In addition, I also wrote a short contribution on the Jewish history of the region, which has been often neglected in previous presentations of the region.The various authors for this volume have been intensively involved with the region in recent years. However, the authors do not only focus on the situation on the ground, but also on the international context of the autonomous administration. The conflict in Syria is no longer just a civil war, but a transnational conflict with important roles played not only by actors such as Russia or the USA, but also Turkey or Iran.Given the transnationality of the conflict and the role of the hegemonic powers, these authors share thoughtful analyses from very different perspectives. It is important to share these diverse views with the world so that the tragic conflict might become more comprehensible. This does not mean, however, that I necessarily advocate each particular position taken by the varied contributors to this book. The intent is to offer you multiple perspectives and certainly not a common narrative.
More...
In this report, several of Russia’s strategic military exercises come under the spotlight to explore the messages and implications of these activities. A nation’s military exercises, especially strategic, are a form of important communication to a wide array of audiences including adversaries, allies, partners and the nation’s own population. This type of communication provides a better understanding of the scope and scale of a country’s military capabilities and readiness. It also provides valuable insights into a nation’s interests, operational art and strategic thinking. Military exercises support political, military and geopolitical intents as well as demonstrating capabilities and challenging our ways of thinking beyond the current framework of traditional military ‘modus operandi’.
More...
Ahead of the June 2016 NATO summit in Warsaw, Poland and other new Member States are stepping up calls for the Alliance to expand its presence on their territories. The military logic is straight-forward: permanently stationed NATO troops would dispel any doubts about the credibility of NATO's Article 5, and decrease the likelihood of Russia's provocation or outright aggression. However, in the absence of a broad political agreement on such a sensitive move in the Alliance, the initiative could prove self-defeating, driving a wedge between Western and Eastern member states and undercutting NATO's fragile consensus on Russia.
More...
Since Russia's annexation of Crimea in March 2014 and subsequent deterioration in Russia's relations with the EU and NATO, nuclear deterrence returned to the forefront of debates on European security. NATO leaders are under pressure to re-open NATO's own nuclear deterrence posture. The communiqué adopted at the recent NATO summit in Warsaw pointed to Russia's "irresponsible and aggressive nuclear rhetoric", and explicitly affirmed the role of strategic nuclear forces in NATO's revamped policy of deterrence.
More...
Russia has always conducted military drills more numerous and larger in scale than NATO’s. Zapad (“West” in Russian) is the exercise sequence that generates most concerns for NATO, not only because of its proximity but also because of memories linked with the huge 1981 iteration, the largest exercises the USSR had ever held, which showcased in all its might the power of its new operational manoeuvre groups. Zapad 2017 will be held in September and is perceived as a potential threat to the security of the region, especially by the Baltic Republics, not least because both the invasion of Georgia and that of Ukraine were preceded by major military exercises. Is the threat credible, and is the fear of an opportunistically expansionist Russia justified in this context?
More...
Winter in Ukraine and Russia has brought cold and snow as usual, and the protagonists in this war, started by the Russian president 300 days ago, has altered accordingly. For the past month or so, the Russian belligerents have changed tactics, apart from fierce fighting at the frontline city of Bakhmut, acknowledging they were not making any ground, in fact being pushed back, albeit slowly. Both sides were and still are putting up defences, and meantime, mostly the Russians, are continuing the war from long range. There is a regrouping, especially around Kherson, before another push early next year. It would seem that Putin’s visit to see President Alexander Lukashenko in Belarus was to discuss his next moves on Ukraine, possibly with Belarus support. His eyes are also on Moldova with its ethnic Russian population to the east of the country. It is interesting to note that Kazakhstan, part of the former southern Asian states related to Moscow, has turned down a request to give assistance to Russia in its war with Ukraine.
More...
The article analyses the data obtained in a survey that involved twenty leading Russian experts specializing in international security, arms control, and strategic stability. The survey was conducted in December 2021. The respondents were asked to name factors that, in their opinion, currently have (2022) or will have a tangible impact on strategic stability in the foreseeable future (until 2036) and to list them in order of their significance. In addition, they were asked whether and how these factors would be taken into account in the future. Two-time frames were chosen for analysis: up until the year 2026 (when the “extended” START-3 Treaty will end) and up until the year 2036 (when a possible nuclear arms control agreement that may replace START-3 will expire). The experts were also asked to assess the degree to which the proposed factors may affect strategic stability in 2022, 2026, and 2036.
More...
In Moscow, on 9 November 2020, Azerbaijan, Armenia and Russia signed the peace agreement that ended the six-week war in the disputed enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh. The agreement is a victory for Azerbaijan, which after 26 years has returned its occupied areas (Kalbajar, Lachin, Qubadli, Zangilan, Jabrayil, Fuzuli, Agdam) that have been controlled by Armenia ever since the ceasefire agreed by the Bishkek Protocol[2]in 1994. The Protocol that ended the previous war was also agreed under the mediation of the Russian Federation.
More...
New escalation of war between Armenia and Azerbaijan, which started on 27 September 2020, suddenly became one of the main topics in the world agenda due to the possibilities regarding involvement of Russia and Turkey in the conflict, targeting of important energy projects in the region, large-scale humanitarian crisis and other issues. Although there have been several other hot skirmishes between the two countries in recent years, this time the escalation is much more extensive and longer than expected. This immediately brings to our minds ceasefire agreements. The parties to the conflict reached agreement on ceasefire (on 10 October, 17 October 1 and 26 October 2 ). However, armed clashes have never stopped and the parties continuously accuse each other of not complying with the ceasefire. In order to fully understand the nature of the ceasefire and the possibility of complete cessation of fire in the Armenian-Azerbaijani war, it would be useful to have a look through the history of ceasefire during the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
More...
In December 2019, the United States officially invited China to enter into a strategic security dialogue. The White House said it hoped Beijing’s consent to this proposal might become the first step towards an international agreement encompassing all nuclear weapons of the United States, Russia, and China. As expected, this proposal was rejected. China said its nuclear arsenal was much smaller than those of the United States and Russia, and it would be able to participate in such talks only when their nuclear potentials were brought to parity with its own.
More...