The U.S. and U.K. Strategies Towards Russia and the Balkans since 1991

• Autorzy: Ivanov Denys
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

This paper presents the comparative analysis of the specifics of the U.S. and U.K. strategies in the Balkans and the post-Soviet area with the definition and explanation of the differences in the political agenda of these two states. The political decisions of the U.S. and U.K. governments were supposed to create a global Euro-Atlantic security system by the enlargement of NATO and the management of the local conflicts. The transition from unipolar moment to multipolar international system determined U.S. withdrawal from liberal internationalism of the 1990s and its return to the containment strategy of political realism after the annexation of Crimea. The Russian geopolitical position was also analysed as important for understanding the current situation in international relations. The paper consists of five parts which include introduction, an analysis of U.S. and U.K. approaches towards the Balkan wars and Russia, escalation of tensions between the West and Russia caused by these events followed by some conclusion.(original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

PL

Stosunki międzynarodowe

EN

International relations

• Czasopismo: Torun International Studies
• Rocznik: 2020
• Numer: nr 1(13)
• Strony: 152-164

Twórcy

autor

Ivanov Denys

• National Academy of Sciences, Kyiv, Ukraine

Bibliografia

• Allan, D. (2018). Managed confrontation. UK policy towards Russia after Salisbury attack. London: Chatham House.
• Baumann, R., Rittberger, V., & Wagner, W. (2001). Neorealist foreign policy theory. In V. Rittberger (Ed.), German foreign policy since unification. Theories and case studies (pp. 37-68). Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press.
• Boduszynski, M. P. (2010). Regime Change in the Yugoslav Successor States: Divergent Paths toward a New Europe. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Brzezinski, Z. (1997). The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives. New-York: Basic Books.
• Brzezinski, Z. (2012). Strategic vision: America and the crisis of global power. New York: Basic Books.
• International Court of Justice. (2010). Accordance with international law of the unilateral declaration of independence in respect of Kosovo. Summary of the Advisory Opinion. Retrieved 24 August, 2019, from https://web.archive.org/web/20140328224253/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/141/16010.pdf
• Johnstone, D. (2002). Fool's Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO and Western Delusions. New York: Monthly Review Press.
• Fairhall, D. (1996). Deadly shadow hangs over Europe. Guardian. April 13.
• Fukuyama, F. (1992). The End of History and the Last Man. New York.: The Free Press.
• House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee. (2007). Global Security: Russia. London: The Stationery Office. Retrieved 5 March, 2019, from https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/51/51.pdf
• Dayton Agreement. (1995). General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Retrieved 25 April, 2019, from https://peacemaker.un.org/bosniadaytonagreement95
• Glaurdic, J. (2011). The Hour of Europe: Western Powers and the Breakup of Yugoslavia. New Haven, London: Yale University Press.
• Glaurdic, J. (2013). The Owl of Minerva Flies Only at Dusk? British Diplomacy on the Eve of Yugoslav Wars. East European Politics and Societies, 27(3), 545-563. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888325413484758
• Gow, J. (1997). Triumph of the Lack of Will: International Diplomacy and the Yugoslav War. London: C. Hurst & Co.
• Hansard. (2016). HC Debate 21 January 2016. Retrieved 23 April, 2019, from https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmhansrd/cm160121/debtext/160121-0002.htm

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.12775/TIS.2020.011