Search

Begin New Search Topic Foreign Policy Political Geography Europe Content Type Journal Article Publishing Institution Centre for East European Studies, University of Warsaw Publication Year within 5 Years

1. The small state’s role in the Euro-Atlantic area: Potential changes in Lithuania’s foreign policy

Author:
Ieva Gajauskaite
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Warsaw East European Review (WEER)
Institution:
Centre for East European Studies, University of Warsaw
Abstract:
Lithuania is a small state by objective features (population, territory, GDP) and subjective ones (geopolitical position, resilience from external security threats, national identity). The goal of this research is to define the main roles of Lithuania, which are relevant to the Lithuanian foreign policy decision-making process nowadays. Those roles are the structure for Lithuania’s new President Gitanas Nausėda. While during his presidency he will have the possibility to modify them, for now for the roles formed and enacted over the last ten years serve as the limits of the change of the policy in the Euro-Atlantic area. The main assumption regarding the roles of Lithuania in the Euro-Atlantic area is that policymakers emphasize the smallness of the state. Accordingly, being a small state is translated to a set of expected and appropriate behavior. Therefore, the classical definition of smallness suggests that Lithuania’s roles should include the strategies of hiding and appeal to democratic values. In order to deny or confirm the assumptions, the research includes the definition of small states, an analysis of small state foreign policy strategies, the main thesis of the Role theory, the theoretical basis of subjective smallness concept, and discussion of Lithuania’s roles in the Euro-Atlantic area, using an interpretive methodology of Social constructivism.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Small states, and Constructivism
Political Geography:
Europe, Lithuania, and Baltic States

2. Reconsidering Russian Foreign Policy in the 21st Century

Author:
Teimuraz Papaskiri
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Warsaw East European Review (WEER)
Institution:
Centre for East European Studies, University of Warsaw
Abstract:
The Russian occupation of Crimea in February-March 2014, marked the beginning of a new phase of tension between the Western world and Russia. Although it was predicted several years prior to the conflict that Ukraine would be Russia’s next victim,1 nobody paid much attention to these warnings. Thus, the Russian moves proved surprising for most Western societies, especially for the leaders of Western countries. It effectively ended the inefficient policy of “reset”, which was actually stillborn, because of the inability of the American administration to understand Vladimir Putin’s person and his goals. In June 2001, Putin met US President George W. Bush, who said after this meeting: “I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country.”2 President Bush was ridiculed for these words, yet even nine years later, he did not acknowledge his mistake. In 2010, he said: “I did not make a mistake in [my] assessment of Russian leader Vladimir Putin [...] Putin became a different person [...] I think, to a certain extent, he changed.”3 It seems that George W. Bush was not able to figure out that it was not Putin who had changed. It was the fact that U.S. and Eu- ropean leaders did not grasp which country Vladimir Putin was “deeply committed” to. For the Russian president, “his country” meant the Soviet Union, not the Russian Federation. He even officially declared that, “the collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopo- litical catastrophe of the century”.4 (Emphasis added – T.P.) This phrase was not just mere nostalgia for the “good old times”, otherwise no one in his right mind would ever call the break-up of the Soviet Union “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.” When talking about the 20th century, during which two world wars cost more than 80 million lives combined, the break-up of one empire with nearly no casualties cannot be considered “the greatest catastrophe.” Therefore, those words meant that Putin’s intention was to re- store, at least, to some extent, the “old greatness” of the Soviet Empire.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Hegemony, Empire, and Strategic Interests
Political Geography:
Russia and Europe

3. Remarks on Regional Security

Author:
Graeme P. Herd
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Warsaw East European Review (WEER)
Institution:
Centre for East European Studies, University of Warsaw
Abstract:
I am delighted to be in Warsaw on this panel. In 1994 when I graduated with a PhD, and held my first academic post, the first international conference I went to was in Wrocław, and obviously I had to travel through Warsaw. So, it’s really nice to be back in Poland and have the opportunity to present in the capital when older and wiser. Today, I am going to try and look at how we understand the rationality, the logic of Russia’s foreign policy, particularly the destabilization efforts against neighbours and come to a conclusion has to how sustainable and long-term this approach will be. Will it gradually diminish or is it set to stay as it is or even increase? To try and understand Russia’s foreign policy, we need to look into the domestic eco- nomic, political, and social system created by a system-forming figure that is President Vladimir Putin. The two key data points here really are two strategic vulnerabilities that Russia has to deal with. The first is the hydrocarbon dependence, 50% of GDP and 70% of exports, and 98% of corporate tax. The vulnerability is that Russia is dependent on hy- drocarbon revenues but cannot affect the price of oil globally (which sets the price of gas). Oil can be priced at $110pb or at $25pb and the shift can take place over a matter of months. The second vulnerability is the popularity of the president. When Putin has de-modernized Russia, de-institutionalized and de-globalized Russia it means that if his popularity decreases then you have an existential crisis within the federation. The destabi- lizing question is: “If not Putin, then whom?” There are no contingency plans, no succession mechanism to replace the leader. So, essentially we are looking at Russia’s foreign policy operating in a context where the economy is in the toilet as reflected in a 0.2% average GDP growth since 2009; 2012 – 0% growth and since 2012 when Kudrin resigned from the government. Normally, the popularity of a president – as was the case in the first 8 years of Putin’s presidency from 2000 to 2008 – tracks the economy, or maybe lags a little bit behind. As economic performance increases and revenues distributed to the population, so the popularity of the president. So, this is very abnormal politics.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, and Regional Cooperation
Political Geography:
Russia and Europe

4. The Role and Activities of the Eastern European Group within the United Nations System

Author:
Boguslaw Wind
Publication Date:
01-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Warsaw East European Review (WEER)
Institution:
Centre for East European Studies, University of Warsaw
Abstract:
Thank you very much for the invitation and thank you for allowing me to speak to you about the United Nations and its role in Central and Eastern Europe. This is probably the first time in the history of our conference that we are discussing the United Nations. I will argue that there is a lot that we as Eastern Europeans can do together and how our coop- eration within the UN can be more fruitful and useful for all. I would like to first discuss how we can cooperate better in the General Assembly, Security Council and the United Nations Secretariat. Where are the opportunities? Where are the challenges? What else should we consider and be aware of? Let us begin with the historical context: what has been the role of the UN for Central and Eastern European countries? During the communist era, we were denied indepen- dence or sovereignty, thus the real interests of our countries were not represented on the global stage. There were of course communist embassies, very close coordination with Soviet diplomats, and weekly or even daily instructions coming from Moscow. This was the case until 1989. Then communism collapsed and our countries regained their inde- pendence and sovereignty. Initially, in the early 1990s, the UN was visibly present in East- ern Europe as a result of civil wars and ethnic conflicts. UN peacekeepers were a familiar sight, serving on various missions seeking to reestablish peace and stability. Then, I would argue, the role of the United Nations in our regional diplomacy and politics declined as the 20th century drew to a close and the 21st century began. This was due to the very powerful roles played by the European Union, NATO and the OSCE. These organizations eclipsed in importance the seemingly distant United Nations in New York City. Now, the situation is changing again, and we are witnessing a resurgence of the UN’s impact on Polish and European diplomacy. The UN is gradually reestablishing its role as useful platform through which Poland can play an active and leading role in promoting the political and economic interests of our region. It is particularly noteworthy that the Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs Jacek Czaputowicz spent the majority of May 2018 in New York – not enjoying the beautiful Big Apple, but working long hours, leading the various debates within the Security Council – giving Polish foreign policy a critical platform on the world stage.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, International Cooperation, Regional Cooperation, and United Nations
Political Geography:
Europe, Eastern Europe, and Poland

5. U. S. Diplomatic and Humanitarian Impact Supporting 1918 Re-Emerging Poland: House, Lord and Hoover

Author:
Z. Anthony Kruszewski
Publication Date:
01-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Warsaw East European Review (WEER)
Institution:
Centre for East European Studies, University of Warsaw
Abstract:
This paper aims to underline a certain dichotomy in the pre-World War II and present perception of the events preceding the history of the re-establishment of Poland on No- vember 11, 1918. Although the historical facts were duly recorded, described and analyzed by the his- torians – the subsequent prevailing ideological interpretations did not fully integrate the events described in this paper into the official school programs of the interwar (1918–1939) II Republic of Poland. The major role for the policies responsible for the rebuilding of the Polish national state after 123 years was then allocated, according to the political beliefs of scholars to either Marshal Józef Piłsudski or Roman Dmowski, and their respective political ideological camps. Hence, the Polish high school students of that period had then only very limited knowledge of the events largely shaped by the Western Allies behind the scene or at the Versailles Conference of 1919 – by the Allied powers, who after all had a decisive role in reshaping the post-World War I map of Europe. Furthermore, because of the Communist take-over of Poland in 1944 and thereafter the total reshaping of school programs during the existence of the Polish People’s Repub- lic until 1989, the presentation of the basic historical facts (rejected by the Communists) were either totally falsified or largely by-passed. Hence, whole generations of Polish high school students educated then – still have huge gaps in the perception of the modern history of their own nation. The above facts lead me to attempt to research anew and to popularize some cir- cumstances, which largely favorably shaped support for the Polish cause after World War I, especially since they were created by the United States.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Sovereignty, and Humanitarian Intervention
Political Geography:
Europe, Eastern Europe, and Poland