Перезагрузка российско-вьетнамских отношений: направления и факторы успеха
The article explores the specificity of relationship between the USSR/RF and DRV/SRV during and after the Cold War, as well as of cooperation between the EAEU and SRV in 2015—2019. The distinctive features of each of the stages in the Soviet/Russian policy is revealed, the success and failure factors in various periods are addressed, promising directions of the current Russia-Vietnam dialogue are identified. In the authors’ view, the EAEU factor is unlikely to play an important role in increasing cooperation between the Russian Federation and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Instead, for Russia it is expedient to offer Vietnam cooperation in technologically advanced spheres, among which digital security, space exploration and medicine can be distinguished, linking them with the Vietnamese, as well as with the Russian, prospective planning. The authors argue that this approach will be behind the Russia-Vietnam cooperation which will be strategic, i.e. futureoriented, and comprehensi ve, i.e. embracing many directions, living up to its formal status — the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership.
The post-Cold War Arctic has seen a transformation from military tension and a focus on national security to a concern for environmental and human security. As a result of this, the globalized Arctic has a high level of peace and stability, maintained by international cooperation between the Arctic states, northern indigenous peoples, sub-national governments and local actors. There has also been a shift from environmental protection to economic activities and, consequently, states easily trump other interests. Now, in the Arctic, these challenges require fresh thinking on a local and global scale. Regional wars, the 'war on terror', and economic crises have posed new threats to Northern security order.
This paper outlines the phenomenon of «fear» as a component of Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) philosophy. The author makes an attempt to submit the concept of the «rational» fear as the basis of political philosophy of the English philosopher, with a special attention given to some «problematic» place of this concept.
On May 18-19, 2012, at the presidential retreat in Camp David in Maryland, U.S. president Barack Obama hosted the 38th annual G8 summit. The leaders discussed global economic growth, development, and peace and security. After less than 24 hours of face-to-face time among the leaders, they issued communiqué of only five pages. However, Camp David was a significant success. The leaders came together to effectively address the most pressing issues of the day while setting the direction for the summits that were to follow, including the summit of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in Chicago, the G20 in Los Cabos, Mexico, and the Rio+20 Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. That success was propelled by several causes. The first is the set of strong global shocks were particularly relevant to a number of items on the agenda. This included the newest installment of the euro-crisis, spikes in oil and food prices, and the escalating violence in Syria. The second is the failure of the other major international institutions to address these challenges. The third is the club’s dedication to the promotion of democracy and its significance on issues such as the democratic transition in the Middle East and North Africa. The fourth is the high relative capabilities of G8 members, fuelled by the strength of the U.S. dollar, the Japanese yen and the British pound. The fifth is the domestic political control, capital, continuity, competence and commitment of the leaders in attendance. Camp David saw several G8 leaders returning for their sixth or seventh summit and leaders with a secure majority mandate and control of their legislative houses at home. Finally, the constricted participation at the remote and secluded Camp David Summit, a unique and original advantage of the G8 summit style, allowed for more spontaneous conversation and interpersonal bonds. Together, these interconnected causes brought the G8 back, as a broader, bigger, bolder centre of effective global governance.
In this article. the author tries to argue about how you can consider Soviet culture monolithic and not suggesting for the artist and the intellectual for any deviations from the official line.
It would seem that the totalitarian regime creates all the condition for eliminating the independent search for the individual style, nevertheless, in the depths of a totalitarian culture, resistance practice may appear.
The author gives a number of examples of such resistance in Soviet culture.
A survey of the Samizdat Archive of the Institute of Eastern Europe in Bremen. Introductory texts and annotated catalogue.