Search

Begin New Search Topic Diplomacy Political Geography Europe Content Type Journal Article Publishing Institution Centre for East European Studies, University of Warsaw

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. The Modern Interfaces of Intermarium and the Fight against Destiny

Author:
Adrian Popa and Cristian Barna
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Warsaw East European Review (WEER)
Institution:
Centre for East European Studies, University of Warsaw
Abstract:
Russia’s recent buildup of A2/AD (anti-access/area denial) forces in Crimea and Kaliningrad, coupled with its increasingly confronting rhetoric in the Black and Baltic Seas, pose a serious challenge for the NATO’s Eastern flank countries. While the mare sui generis status of the Black Sea might be altered under the expected inauguration of Canal Istanbul in 2023 as it would probably require the revision of the Montreux Convention, the mare liberum status of the Baltic Sea might also be questioned as Russia contests NATO’s Enhanced Forward Presence in this region. Facing this challenging geostrategic context, Pilsudski’s ideas of Intermarium seem to have revived within the Central and Eastern European countries under modern interfaces such as the Bucharest Nine and the Three Seas Initiative. This paper proposes a comparative analysis between the Black Sea and the Baltic Sea in terms of their newly-emerged geostrategic context, discusses the feasibility of the recent endeavours to promote cooperation within the Central and Eastern European countries and not ultimately, highlights the utility of a regional military alliance in support of NATO.
Topic:
NATO, Diplomacy, International Security, International Affairs, and Geopolitics
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Asia, Crimea, Baltic Sea, and Baltic States

3. The Logic of Geopolitics in American-Russian Relations

Author:
Allen C. Lynch
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Warsaw East European Review (WEER)
Institution:
Centre for East European Studies, University of Warsaw
Abstract:
One of Zbigniew Brzezinski’s first requests as President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor in 1977 was to ask the Pentagon for its plans – including targets – for nuclear war against “Russia”. Brzezinski was outraged when he was presented with the plan for nuclear war against the Soviet Union. He could not believe that the U.S. military had no plans to spe- cifically weaken the Russian core of the Soviet empire. For the Pentagon planners, Russia and the Soviet Union were one and the same.1 I begin with this anecdote because it reflects well an enduring geopolitical logic to American-Russian relations: American policy toward Russia, whether it be in the Tsarist, Soviet, or post-Soviet period, has not been based on opposing a strong Russian state per se. (That state married to communist ideology was something else altogether.) In the after- math of the Russian Civil War, for instance, the United States delayed recognition of Baltic independence until 1922, two years after Soviet Russia had recognized the independence of Estonia in the Treaty of Tartu, on the grounds that Polish and Finnish independence apart nothing should be done to call into question the territorial continuity of the Russian Em- pire.2 Indeed, American officials seldom viewed the Soviet Union as an empire, as the Pen- tagon war plans just cited illustrate. Historically, the logic of geopolitics i.e., the influence of organization in space on international political relationships has often tended to frame American-Russian relations in terms of complementarities of interest. Of course, geopolitics is not the only logic in AmericanRussian relations; ideology, domestic politics, as well as vested institutional interests all play their role in varying degrees under varying circum- stances. But historically, insofar as geopolitical factors have prevailed, American-Russian relations have generally been harmonious, if also remote and indirect in nature. (By indirect I mean that each sees the other mainly in terms of other powers or processes, e.g., the state of the balance of power in Europe and/or Northeast Asia.) Let us recall that Russia, whether it be under Imperial, Soviet, or post-Soviet auspices, is an essentially continental Eurasian power. Its primary state interest for centuries has been to build and consolidate a trans-continental, multi-national and imperial state while also man- aging international power politics with a series of powerful adversaries throughout Asia and Europe. Above all, Russia sought to ensure that no powerful coalition of external (and in Eu- rope technologically superior) powers could unite to challenge the Russian Empire’s territorial or political integrity. Russian diplomats and rulers thus learned to play the European balance of power with considerable finesse (e.g., the Treaty of Nystadt, 1721, under Peter the Great; the Congress of Vienna, 1815, under Alexander I; the Treaty of Rapallo between Soviet Russia and Weimar Germany, 1922; the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact, 1939; the Grand Alliance with the United States and Great Britain, 1941–45; and the Helsinki Final Act, 1975, to name just a few instances). As with Great Britain, maintaining a favorable European balance of power has been central to Russian statecraft.3 The United States, by contrast, is functionally an insular power (albeit on a continental scale) with respect to the rest of the world, surrounded as it is by two great oceans and militarily weak and isolated neighbors (i.e., Canada and Mexico). America’s primary foreign policy concern throughout most of its history has thus been, like Russia’s, to prevent the emergence of a hostile European hegemon that could threaten the country’s expansion in North America and its own hegemony in the Western Hemisphere. Once the United States had stabilized its independence from Britain after the War of 1812, U.S. and British geopo- litical interests tended to coincide.4 In this context, American and Russian interests have more often been complementary than antagonistic. It has been primarily the intrusion of ideological elements, reflecting for example Americans’ global democratic aspirations or the Soviet Union’s ultimate objec- tive of the triumph of communism worldwide, that have rendered the bilateral relationship intransigent and even dangerous.5
Topic:
International Relations, Cold War, Diplomacy, Bilateral Relations, Hegemony, Post Cold War, and Rivalry
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Soviet Union, North America, and United States of America

4. The Kaliningrad Region – Key to Security in East-Central Europe

Author:
Krzysztof Zegota
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Warsaw East European Review (WEER)
Institution:
Centre for East European Studies, University of Warsaw
Abstract:
Political transformations in East-Central Europe after 1989, and the advancing pro- cesses of integration, have resulted in a significant increase in the importance of the Ka- liningrad region of the Russian Federation for the stabilisation of this part of Europe in two dimensions: the Kaliningrad region provides a unique example and a specific “testing ground” for cooperation between the European Union (EU) and Russia, and also plays a crucial geopolitical role for the southern part of the Baltic Sea region. For the Russian Federation, this region has become especially important in view of the integration pro- cesses occurring in East-Central Europe over the last twenty-five years. The European integration process has been ongoing, with significant milestones marked by two stages of the EU expansion in 2004 and 2007, when a series of East-Central European states gained membership. An increase in the cohesion of this part of Europe was also affected by progressive Euro-Atlantic integration, a subsequent step of which was the eastward expansion of NATO in 1999 and in 2004. Thus, the area of European and Euro-Atlantic inte- gration significantly neared the borders of the Russian Federation. It is important that the Kaliningrad region has entered into intensive interactions with various entities from the EU member states, becoming involved – to some extent – in the network of relations with the EU: through the integration of local governments, universities, non-governmental organi- zations, and by utilizing various cross-border cooperation programmes.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Diplomacy, Regional Cooperation, and European Union
Political Geography:
Europe

5. From a Common to a National State(s) and the Lithuanian-Polish Dispute

Author:
Alfonsas Eidntas
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Warsaw East European Review (WEER)
Institution:
Centre for East European Studies, University of Warsaw
Abstract:
On the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the restoration of the independent states of Poland and Lithuania, we will return to a fundamental question, namely, whether the relationship between our contemporary states, which had already become hostile during the restoration process, is a time of missed opportunities? Or maybe the interests of both sides were simply so different that it was impossible for them to agree on a matter of major importance – state territory (partly also on the issue of national minorities) – and to balance their interests, thus avoiding conflict and a particularly hostile bilateral relationship which lasted until the tragic developments for both Poland and Lithuania in 1939-1940, when our countries fell victim to two tyrants. It is necessary to adopt new approaches to history. As time passes, new generations lose the memory of how events developed. Moreover, old beliefs, suspicions, and phobias are even revived. I would like to tell you a personal story in order to illustrate this point. At the end of December 1993, an annual convention of Lithuanian ambassadors was held in Vilnius. I had just flown in from Washington, D.C., and so I was reflecting on the attitude of the U.S. Administration and the conclusions that were arrived at after some friendly dis- cussions with the staff of the Polish Embassy in Washington D.C., and I shared my thoughts.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Bilateral Relations, Territorial Disputes, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Europe, Poland, and Lithuania

6. 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

7. Studies in Poland’s Foreign Policy: the case of Poland-Russia Relations

Author:
Marijus Antonovic
Publication Date:
01-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Warsaw East European Review (WEER)
Institution:
Centre for East European Studies, University of Warsaw
Abstract:
his article will analyse the academic literature on Poland’s Foreign Policy by focusing on its used theoretical approaches. It will be done through the analysis of the example of Poland’s relations with Russia, which it is believed depicts the broader tendencies in the aca- demic literature on Poland’s Foreign Policy. Three approaches will be identified – lack of a clear theoretical or methodological perspective, historical perspectives and constructivism. The pa- per concludes that overall Poland’s relations with Russia are understudied, and this opens up opportunities to conduct new research on Poland’s foreign policy and to bring new findings on the factors driving it.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Military Strategy, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, and Poland

8. Shaking the Foundation: the Trump Administration and NATO’s East

Author:
Metthew Bryza
Publication Date:
01-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Warsaw East European Review (WEER)
Institution:
Centre for East European Studies, University of Warsaw
Abstract:
This is a very powerful place for me to be, here at the University of Warsaw, I am totally Polish by background, 100 percent. I was looking in front of my hotel today, at the monu- ment to the victims of Soviet repression and the deportations, it is very powerful. I looked at all the towns that victims came from, and I thought about my grandmother’s region – Sambor, She was only from a small village, but you know, it made me think that had she, like so many other Poles, not taken a very difficult decision at that time I probably would not exist, would not be here speaking before you, and the changes that this country has gone through, would have never have happened. Fundamentally, my talk, is going to end up being optimistic, but it’s going to start pessimistic, because the title is, U.S. relations with NATO’s East under Trump: Shaking the foundation. But before that I just want to build on some other things that were said already and thank all the excellencies who are here, the ambassadors, the other members of the diplomatic and academic communities. Professor Micgiel referred to my new life outside of diplomacy. I have a joint venture with a Finnish company, Lamor Corporation, which is the world’s largest oil spill response company. I am on their global board – a fantastic en- vironmental technologies company, and it’s really fun to be involved in entrepreneurial en- deavor, even if it’s scary, because, well, all my meager savings are on the line and I have to succeed. So, it’s very nice to be back here and have a chance to think and stretch my mind in the way I did in my previous career, to be here with you in a place that my grandparents may have never been able to enter. So it’s a very powerful moment for me, thank you. And also to be an opening speaker, together with Secretary of State Szczerski and with my favorite boss of all time, Ambassador Daniel Fried closing the conference. Dan taught me so much about this part of the world, which I’ll get to in a moment, enabled me and my dear friend Kurt Volker, who is now the new special representative for Ukraine, to make it, to move through the State Department system, when there were all sorts of bureaucratic obstacles, If you go back and google us, you will see we were attacked by The Washington Post, when we were brought to the State Department from the White House in 2005. There is a position in the State Department called DAS – Deputy Assistant Secretary. That’s the first level at which things get serious, where you actually can have an impact on policy. And, we were called the baby DASes, because we were brought over at younger age than normal, thanks to Secretary Rice and Ambassador Fried, and Dan suffered because of that, inside the bureaucracy, a lot of people disliked him because he enabled Ambassador Volker and me, and then another ambassador, Mark Pekala, a Polish American guy as well who became ambassador to Latvia. I remember, Mark at that time was 50, and he said: “Boy, only in the State Department and in Washington could a 50-year-old guy be criticized for being a baby”. So, it’s great to be outside Washington, it really is. I live in Istan- bul now, by the way.
Topic:
NATO, Diplomacy, Regional Cooperation, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:
Europe, North Atlantic, North America, and United States of America

9. EU Public Diplomacy and the Eastern Partnership: Some Reflections on Goals, Determinants and Constraints

Author:
Barbara Curylo
Publication Date:
01-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Warsaw East European Review (WEER)
Institution:
Centre for East European Studies, University of Warsaw
Abstract:
The aim of this article is to show public diplomacy using the example of the Euro- pean Union, which by its very nature is perceived as an actor with a natural potential to conduct public diplomacy. In a more detailed perspective, the analysis concerns EU public diplomacy towards the states of the Eastern Partnership, which is both an addressee of its objectives and a catalyst for its difficulties and constraints. The article consists of three parts. In the first part, the definitions’ section of public diplomacy was briefly presented. In the second part, the aims and objectives of public diplomacy in the understanding of the European Union were presented. An important element of this section concerns the justification for why the European Union is per- ceived as an actor predestined to conduct public diplomacy. In the third part, the starting point for the analysis was the assumption that the EU’s goal in public diplomacy is to define its image and its role in its international environment, which is conducive to the EU taking on many interna- tional efforts, including the establishment of the Eastern Partnership. At the same time, analysing EU public diplomacy through the prism of this initiative offers a research opportunity to look closely at the limitations of EU public diplomacy in general, which can be strategic in terms of as- sessing the EU’s efficiency and effectiveness in achieving its objectives in international relations. .
Topic:
Diplomacy, Regional Cooperation, and European Union
Political Geography:
Europe

10. Defending the Free World

Author:
Daniel Fried
Publication Date:
01-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Warsaw East European Review (WEER)
Institution:
Centre for East European Studies, University of Warsaw
Abstract:
ne week ago President Trump spoke at Plac Krasińskich and gave the best foreign policy address of his presidency. He spoke of a community of nations, an alliance of coun- tries united by values, among those values the rule of law, freedom of expression, freedom of speech. He spoke of a strong alliance of free nations. He spoke a strong Europe. He then mentioned that Russia is acting in Ukraine and other ways, as a destabilizing factor in the world. And therefore reaffirmed America’s Article 5 commitment to Poland and to all the other NATO members. As I said, I think this was the best foreign policy speech of President Trump’s new presidency. He reaffirmed in essence America’s commitment to the free world. The free world is sometimes termed the liberal world order but I really don’t like the phrase “the liberal world order,” because there are many people who don’t describe themselves as liberals, who belong in it, not outside it. I prefer “the free world”. And in re- committing the United States to the free world, President Trump was following a centu- ries-old tradition in the West. In Europe, the notion of a just international order, rooted in transnational values, is at least as old as Erasmus. Emmanuel Kant elaborated the theory of perpetual peace between states committed to the rule of law and republican values. As my country, as America, emerged as a world power at the end of the 19th century, we developed our own American Grand Strategy, our version of the free world. We thought of ourselves as distinct from the European empires and spheres of influence of the time. In contrast, America sought an open, rules-based world, more just and simultaneously more profitable for ourselves and for others, because we Americans recognize that our interests, our prosperity and our security are tied to the prosperity and security of other nations. We believe that the advanced democracies of the world should set the global agenda along the lines of this vision. An objective, ambitious, but also generous vision, because we un- derstand America’s national interests in broad, not narrow terms. In his memoirs, Kurier z Warszawy, Jan Nowak-Jeziorański writes of astonishment at American humanitarian as- sistance to Poland in 1920 and wondered what sort of nation helped others and asked nothing for itself. But America understood that as we helped others, we in fact advanced our own interests, because America could not do good business with poor countries. We wanted to make the world a better place so we could all get rich. That was our American ambition and confidence. My nation developed the outlines of this grand strategy starting in 1900, but my country failed to apply it in the 1930s when Europe needed us most.
Topic:
NATO, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:
Europe, North Atlantic, United States of America, and North America

11. Power-Sharing as a Peace-Building Solution for Ukraine

Author:
Uliana Movchan
Publication Date:
01-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Warsaw East European Review (WEER)
Institution:
Centre for East European Studies, University of Warsaw
Abstract:
The institutional arrangement in Ukraine is a game with zero-sum: a strong president (winner) takes all. In the case of the ongoing conflict in the East of Ukraine and the consequences of such a conflict, it forces us to look for a solution to overcome the existing problem, especially, where each part of Ukraine can feel its impact on the political process (or decision-making). When comparing the power-sharing situation in Ukraine (like a president from one political party, and a prime minister from the opposite, or from another patron-client network, or a coalition consisting of opposite parties) it has been found that democracy is much more likely to occur in these situations, and Ukraine which is in the process of democratic trans- formation can come closer to other European countries. Therefore these findings open the door to thinking about not just how to reform the existing majoritarian model of democracy, which produces a winner-takes-all outcome, but to look for a model which would share something between each substantial segment of society, and would give a better chance for Ukraine to be a democratic country and a real part of the European community. Such a model could become the power-sharing model suggested by Arend Lijphart, which presupposes systems with inter- est accommodation and power sharing among significant segments of society.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Political Power Sharing, Conflict, and Peace
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, and Ukraine

12. Round Table I – Regional Security

Author:
Matthew Rhodes
Publication Date:
01-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Warsaw East European Review (WEER)
Institution:
Centre for East European Studies, University of Warsaw
Abstract:
I will try to talk about a little bit about what NATO in particular as a core part of this community has been doing to respond. A starting point is to recognize that this confer- ence is taking place at almost exactly the one year anniversary of NATO’s summit here in Warsaw. I had an opportunity to participate during this summit at the parallel Warsaw Summit Experts Forum that was organized by NATO together with the Polish Institute of International Affairs here in Warsaw. While the adults were meeting in the Warsaw National Stadium about 300 other professors and experts such as myself were meeting in a circus tent across the parking lot. Sometimes this felt a little bit silly but it was very interesting to hear firsthand from many of the people attending the main summit and one of the open- ing speakers there was President Duda. One thing that stuck with me was his remark that for him this summit was the second most important thing that had happened for Poland since the end of the Cold War and the only thing that topped it was Poland’s entry to NATO itself, so for him this was really a big deal. What I will try to do in my time is to talk a little bit about why the Warsaw Summit was so important for President Duda and other leaders of the alliance, and try to reflect on where we are a year after that summit and what remains to be done for NATO to respond to the Russian threat especially of hybrid warfare.
Topic:
Security, NATO, Diplomacy, Regional Cooperation, Military Strategy, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Europe, Poland, and North America

13. Turkey and East Central Europe: Idealism, Pragmatism, Misperception or Clash of Interests?

Author:
Konrad Zasztowt
Publication Date:
01-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Warsaw East European Review (WEER)
Institution:
Centre for East European Studies, University of Warsaw
Abstract:
urkey is focused on Russia in its policy vis-à-vis the Black Sea region, Cauca- sus, Ukraine, Balkan countries as well as, at least to some extent, Central European countries, including Poland. This priority has its impact on Ankara’s relationship with Eastern and Central European countries, which remain in the shadow of Turkish policy towards Russia. However that negative impact is not powerful enough to spoil Turkey’s cooperation with Eastern and Central European countries. It certainly limits the scope of such partnerships or alliances. Turkey contin- ues to cooperate with the region’s countries, but often rejects their Euro-Atlanticism. In Turkish perception the EU’s enlargement in Central Europe was unjust (as Turkey has been applying much longer for the EU’s membership without any significant progress, whereas post-commu- nist countries were accepted relatively quickly). NATO enlargement in the East in Turkey’s view was always a ‘risky adventure’. At the same time, from Ankara’s point of view the Middle East is strategically more important than Turkish northern neighbourhood. Moreover, Turkey wants to be an equal interlocutor in dialogue with Russia, the U.S. and the EU, whereas it often conceives post-communist and post-Soviet countries merely as a zone of influence for the Kremlin and Washington or their battleground in Cold War 2.0.
Topic:
NATO, Cold War, Diplomacy, Regional Cooperation, Military Strategy, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Turkey, Poland, North America, and United States of America