DOCSLIB.ORG

Can Russia's Quest for the New International Order Succeed?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Can Russia's Quest for the New International Order Succeed? Can Russia’s Quest for the New International Order Succeed? February 20, 2018 By Mamuka Tsereteli Mamuka Tsereteli is a Senior Research Fellow of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute at American Foreign Policy Institute in Washington, D.C. His expertise includes international relations, economic and energy security, and political risk analysis in the Black Sea-Caspian Region. Abstract: A genesis and development of the conflict in Ukraine demonstrated fragility of the international security system and its inability to guard sovereignty of the smaller or weaker nations. By creating and then manipulating conflicts, Russia is gaining leverage over the decision making on political and economic development, governance issues, and the external alliances of those countries. By challenging sovereignty of smaller states, and forcibly changing their borders, Russia is challenging existing international order and the basic principles of Helsinki Final Act on Security and Co- operation in Europe of 1975, to which the Soviet Union, and its successor state, Russian Federation, are signatories. For the interests of global stability, it is a priority to bring Russia back to the framework of the Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe (OSCE) without any concessions on principles of sovereignty for all OSCE member states. t the core of the conflict between the West and Russia is the fundamental disagreement of the current Russian leadership with the post-Cold War European order. Russia is changing realities on the ground to create A conditions that will lead to negotiations on a new security architecture for Europe and the entire Northern Hemisphere. The Russian idea of this new system of security is to limit the sovereignty of the countries in its neighborhood and prevent the penetration of Western hard and soft power, as well as its system of values and governance, in the former Soviet space, an area that Russia considers as its sphere of strategic interest. Russian leadership has on several occasions communicated this message to the international community.1 President Vladimir Putin, in his widely publicized 2007 speech at the Munich Security Conference, expressed Russia’s dissatisfaction with the existing “unipolar” character of the world order. He followed with a harsh criticism of the Organization 1 “The Draft of the European Security Treaty,” Official Internet Resource of the President of Russia, Kremlin, Nov. 29, 2009, http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/6152. © 2018 Published for the Foreign Policy Research Institute by Elsevier Ltd. SpringSpring 20182018 || 204204 doi: 10.1016/j.orbis.2018.02.003 Can Russia’s Quest for the New International OrderTSERETELI Succeed? for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and Western countries in general. He had already criticized the West’s push to fulfill all the conditions of the 1999 revised treaty on Conventional Arm Forces in Europe (CFE), including the removal of all Russian forces from Georgia and Moldova. But most importantly, he stated that “we have reached that decisive moment when we must seriously think about the architecture of global security.”2 While the speech was publicized widely, world leaders did not take Putin’s statement seriously enough. The Russian leader had a plan that could lead to new realities, forcing others to pay more attention to Russian statements and actions. Implementation of that plan continues to this day. The Russian Federation took the first significant step to shake the existing European status quo in 2007 when Russia officially suspended its participation in the CFE treaty. This move was followed by the events in Georgia in 2008 when the Russian military invaded the territory of the sovereign country and maintained its military presence there after active conflict ended. Russia simultaneously recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia, two regions of Georgia, as independent states. All of these actions were publicized as a Russian response to recognizing Kosovo’s independence against the will of Serbia. The same argument was used in 2014. Russian leadership considered NATO’s commitment to Georgia and Ukraine at the 2008 Bucharest summit as a threat to Russia’s security interests. The immediate objective of the Russian Federation was to stop the Eastward expansion of European security and economic institutions. Its long-term goal was to push for a new security arrangement with NATO, the EU, and United States which would recognize Russian supremacy over the sovereign rights of the countries in Russia’s neighborhood. Under the premise of protecting its own sovereignty vis-à- vis supra-national organizations and “universal” values,3 the Russian Federation has sought arrangements with Western powers designed to limit the sovereignty of neighboring states. Russia considers this process a legitimate method of ensuring its own security. Sovereignty in this context is understood as the supreme authority within a territory which is exercised in both internal development and external relations.4 The current international relations system is based on the sovereign rights of nation states, both internally and externally sovereign, to ally, trade, conclude agreements, open borders, etc., as well as on the Westphalian premise that interfering in other states’ governing prerogatives is illegitimate.5 The Russian Federation is using military force, coercion, and economic and energy supply disruptions to limit the sovereignty of 2 Vladimir Putin, Putin’s Prepared Remarks at 43rd Munich Conference on Security Policy, Munich, 2007, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/12/ AR2007021200555.html. 3 Alexander Dugin, Counter-Currents, July 2012, https://www.counter-currents.com/2012/07/ interview-with-alexander-dugin/. 4 Dan Philpott, “Sovereignty,” in Edward N. Zalta, ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Summer 2014, http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2014/entries/sovereignty/. 5 Alan James, “The Practice of Sovereign Statehood in Contemporary International Society,” Political Studies, vol. 47, no. 3 (1999), pp. 457–473. Spring 2018 | 205 CanTSERETELI Russia’s Quest for the New International Order Succeed? other countries to prevent their integration into Western led institutions. Russia’s status as the prevailing military power is an essential element of Russian strategy. For Russia, asymmetry in power is a source of asymmetry in sovereignty. Experience of Russian policies vis-à-vis its neighbors, as well as military invasions in Ukraine and Georgia, demonstrates that today’s Russia aggressively pursues power politics to restore control over former Soviet Union space. The West needs a clear strategy to bring Russia back into the system of international norms, and rules and power politics should be part of it. Matching Russian military power in the Black Sea region will send a message that Moscow will understand. Ultimately, various sides need to come back to the basics of the Helsinki process, and the sovereignty of the nation states should remain as a fundamental principle of the stability in Europe. The Anatomy of Conflict in Ukraine The trigger for the conflict in Ukraine in 2014 was the earlier decision of the pro-Russian leader of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych to reverse his own policy of being associated with the European Union through a so-called Association Agreement (AA). The AA is an agreement about introducing a rule of law-based political and economic system to countries willing to improve their system of governance and to trade with the European Union. The AA is neither a membership agreement nor an agreement on military or security cooperation. By November 2013, before the planned date for signing the Association Agreement, Ukraine already had committed itself to a nonaligned status and had accepted a long-term agreement with Russia on the status of naval bases in the Black Sea port Sebastopol. The agreement allowed Russian control of the base until 2035. These were significant concessions that Ukraine made under Russian pressure, and the international system, including international organizations such as the UN, OSCE, and NATO, did not oppose this pressure for the sake of “stability” in the region. Russia, however, did not view those decisions as concessions, but rather as entitlements. The sequence of events in Ukraine unfolded in the following manner: a Russia-oriented leader of Ukraine, former President Yanukovych, wanted to sign the Association Agreement with Europe while Russia, the Russian Federation, and President Putin personally did not allow this to happen. This lack of agreement led to internal turmoil which pushed Yanukovych out of power. This action, in turn, led to more aggressive Russian actions—the military invasion and annexation of Crimea, and then the Russian supported proxy war in Eastern Ukraine. In addition to violating the UN charter, Russia’s actions violated the four-party Budapest Agreement of 1994, where Ukraine gave up its significant nuclear arsenal in exchange for guarantees of security and territorial integrity affirmed by the United Kingdom, the United States, and the Russian Federation. Russia’s aggression in Ukraine is a logical continuation of its violation of international obligations in an effort to change the security status quo in Europe. 206 | Orbis Can Russia’s Quest for the New International OrderTSERETELI Succeed? Viktor Yanukovych Paradoxically, some experts and diplomats attempted to link the escalating situation in Ukraine to the Western “attempt to force” Ukraine into the European institutions, which led to the Maidan movement and the forced change of the government of Ukraine. In reality, the escalation started when Russia forced Ukraine to reverse its decision to sign the Association Agreement with the EU on the eve of the Vilnius Summit of the EU’s Eastern Partnership in November 2013. The great majority of the Ukrainians found this development surprising, and they resisted it. In this context, the question is whether sovereign nations have the right both to security and for the rule of law based on a political and economic system designed to raise living standards and grant more political and economic freedoms.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • THE MENSHEVIKS in 1917 by Olegpmwkov Bachelor of Arts
    THE MENSHEVIKS IN 1917 r:. = BY OLEGpmwKOV Bachelor of Arts Moscow State Pedagogical Institute Moscow, USSR 1983 Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS July 1992 THE MENSHEVIKS IN 1917 Thesis Approved: Thesis Advisor 0 Dean of the Graduate College 11 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express sincere appreciation to Dr. George F. Jewsbury and Dr. Joel M. Jenswold for their encouragement and advice throughout my graduate program. Many thanks also go to Dr. W. Roger Biles for serving on my graduate committee. Their suggestions and support were very helpful throughout the study. To Wann Smith for his expert typing and proofing skills; to Oscar Kursner for his help in translation. My wife, Y elaina Khripkov, encouraged and supported me all the way and helped me keep the end goal constantly in sight. Thanks go to her for her undivided time in the final stages of the project. She prov 1ded moral support and was a real believer in my abilities. 111 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. The Main Approaches to the Study of the Russian Revolution in American Historiography 2 The Study of Menshevism in the U.S. 6 Soviet Scholars on Menshevism 8 Sources 1 2 Themes and Problems 14 II. Tiffi "HONEYMOON' OF Tiffi REVOLUTION_~-~-~! 8 The Necessity for the Dual Power 1 8 The Essence and Structure of Dual Power 2 7 Establishing of the Revolutionary Defensists Policy3 5 III. THE APRIL CRISIS AND ITS CONSEQUENCES _____4 7 The First Clash.
    [Show full text]
  • Georgian Country and Culture Guide
    Georgian Country and Culture Guide მშვიდობის კორპუსი საქართველოში Peace Corps Georgia 2017 Forward What you have in your hands right now is the collaborate effort of numerous Peace Corps Volunteers and staff, who researched, wrote and edited the entire book. The process began in the fall of 2011, when the Language and Cross-Culture component of Peace Corps Georgia launched a Georgian Country and Culture Guide project and PCVs from different regions volunteered to do research and gather information on their specific areas. After the initial information was gathered, the arduous process of merging the researched information began. Extensive editing followed and this is the end result. The book is accompanied by a CD with Georgian music and dance audio and video files. We hope that this book is both informative and useful for you during your service. Sincerely, The Culture Book Team Initial Researchers/Writers Culture Sara Bushman (Director Programming and Training, PC Staff, 2010-11) History Jack Brands (G11), Samantha Oliver (G10) Adjara Jen Geerlings (G10), Emily New (G10) Guria Michelle Anderl (G11), Goodloe Harman (G11), Conor Hartnett (G11), Kaitlin Schaefer (G10) Imereti Caitlin Lowery (G11) Kakheti Jack Brands (G11), Jana Price (G11), Danielle Roe (G10) Kvemo Kartli Anastasia Skoybedo (G11), Chase Johnson (G11) Samstkhe-Javakheti Sam Harris (G10) Tbilisi Keti Chikovani (Language and Cross-Culture Coordinator, PC Staff) Workplace Culture Kimberly Tramel (G11), Shannon Knudsen (G11), Tami Timmer (G11), Connie Ross (G11) Compilers/Final Editors Jack Brands (G11) Caitlin Lowery (G11) Conor Hartnett (G11) Emily New (G10) Keti Chikovani (Language and Cross-Culture Coordinator, PC Staff) Compilers of Audio and Video Files Keti Chikovani (Language and Cross-Culture Coordinator, PC Staff) Irakli Elizbarashvili (IT Specialist, PC Staff) Revised and updated by Tea Sakvarelidze (Language and Cross-Culture Coordinator) and Kakha Gordadze (Training Manager).
    [Show full text]
  • 6. Imereti – Historical-Cultural Overview
    SFG2110 SECOND REGIONAL DEVELOPMETN PROJECT IMERETI REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM IMERETI TOURISM DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY Public Disclosure Authorized STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL, CULTURAL HERITAGE AND SOCIAL ASSESSMENT Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Tbilisi, December, 2014 ABBREVIATIONS GNTA Georgia National Tourism Administration EIA Environnemental Impact Assessment EMP Environmental Management Plan EMS Environmental Management System IFI International Financial Institution IRDS Imereti Regional Development Strategy ITDS Imereti Tourism Development Strategy MDF Municipal Development Fund of Georgia MoA Ministry of Agriculture MoENRP Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources Protection of Georgia MoIA Ministry of Internal Affairs MoCMP Ministry of Culture and Monument Protection MoJ Ministry of Justice MoESD Ministry of Economic and Sustaineble Developmnet NACHP National Agency for Cultural Heritage Protection PIU Project Implementation Unit PPE Personal protective equipment RDP Regional Development Project SECHSA Strategic Environmental, Cultural Heritage and Social Assessment WB World Bank Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................... 0 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 14 1.1 PROJECT CONTEXT ...............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Russian Revolution, 1917
    The Russian Revolution, 1917 Rex A. Wade George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia published by the press syndicate of the university of cambridge The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom cambridge university press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge, CB2 2RU, UK http://www.cup.cam.ac.uk 40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011±4211, USA http://www.cup.org 10 Stamford Road, Oakleigh, Melbourne 3166, Australia Ruiz de AlarcoÂn 13, 28014 Madrid, Spain # Cambridge University Press 2000 This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2000 Printed in the United Kingdom at the University Press, Cambridge Typeface Plantin 10/12pt System 3B2 [ce] A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication data Wade, Rex A. The Russian Revolution, 1917 / Rex Wade. p. cm. ± (New approaches to European history) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0 521 41548 9 (hb) ± ISBN 0 521 42565 4 (pb) 1. Soviet Union ± History ± Revolution, 1917±1921. I. Title: Russian Revolution. II. Title. III. Series. DK265.W24 2000 947.084'1 ± dc21 99±056317 ISBN 0 521 41548 9 hardback ISBN 0 521 42565 4 paperback Contents List of plates page vi List of maps viii Preface ix Chronology xiv 1 The coming of the revolution 1 2 The February Revolution 29 3 Political realignment and the new political system 53 4 The aspirations of Russian society 87 5 The peasants and the purposes of revolution 127 6 The nationalities: identity and opportunity 144 7 The summer of discontents 170 8 ``All Power to the Soviets'' 206 9 The Bolsheviks take power 232 10 The Constituent Assembly and the purposes of power 255 11 Conclusions 283 Notes 299 Further reading 314 Index 329 v Plates 1 Street barricade during the February Revolution.
    [Show full text]
  • Causes of War Prospects for Peace
    Georgian Orthodox Church Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung CAUSES OF WAR PROS P E C TS FOR PEA C E Tbilisi, 2009 1 On December 2-3, 2008 the Holy Synod of the Georgian Orthodox Church and the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung held a scientific conference on the theme: Causes of War - Prospects for Peace. The main purpose of the conference was to show the essence of the existing conflicts in Georgia and to prepare objective scientific and information basis. This book is a collection of conference reports and discussion materials that on the request of the editorial board has been presented in article format. Publishers: Metropolitan Ananya Japaridze Katia Christina Plate Bidzina Lebanidze Nato Asatiani Editorial board: Archimandrite Adam (Akhaladze), Tamaz Beradze, Rozeta Gujejiani, Roland Topchishvili, Mariam Lordkipanidze, Lela Margiani, Tariel Putkaradze, Bezhan Khorava Reviewers: Zurab Tvalchrelidze Revaz Sherozia Giorgi Cheishvili Otar Janelidze Editorial board wishes to acknowledge the assistance of Irina Bibileishvili, Merab Gvazava, Nia Gogokhia, Ekaterine Dadiani, Zviad Kvilitaia, Giorgi Cheishvili, Kakhaber Tsulaia. ISBN 2345632456 Printed by CGS ltd 2 Preface by His Holiness and Beatitude Catholicos-Patriarch of All Georgia ILIA II; Opening Words to the Conference 5 Preface by Katja Christina Plate, Head of the Regional Office for Political Dialogue in the South Caucasus of the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung; Opening Words to the Conference 8 Abkhazia: Historical-Political and Ethnic Processes Tamaz Beradze, Konstantine Topuria, Bezhan Khorava - A
    [Show full text]
  • Language Policy and National Identity in Georgia
    Language Policy and National Identity in Georgia A thesis submitted for the degree of PhD to Queen Mary University of London 2011 Rusudan Amirejibi-Mullen Linguistics Abstract Language has been long recognised as a powerful marker of national identity, as has its role in transforming multi-ethnic societies into unified nations. Such is the case of multi-ethnic and multilingual Georgia, where language has today become a crucial factor in interethnic relations and in the Georgian nation-building process. This thesis sheds light on the nature of kartveloba (Georgianness) by examining Georgian language policy over the entire history of the nation. Despite the country’s long-standing civilisation and its established culture, Georgian statehood began to decline from the second half of the thirteenth century, until the country was eventually incorporated into the Russian empire at the beginning of the nineteenth century. Since then, there have been several attempts to instigate a ‘national revival’: 1) the cultural/linguistic movement of the nineteenth century, 2) the struggle to build a nation-state in 1918-1921, 3) the national liberation movement during the Soviet period (1921-1991), and 4) nation- state building in the post-Soviet period. All of these periods display common features with regard to language policy. 2 After investigating language policy and identity developments in the pre- modern period, this thesis examines Georgia under Russian rule (both Tsarist and Soviet), which made the country vulnerable to ethnic conflicts, and tries to explain the violent outcomes. The thesis goes on to examine public debate of language and minority issues, as well as efforts to elaborate inclusive language and ethnic policies in contemporary Georgia.
    [Show full text]
  • The Figurative Language of Soviet Power and Georgian Literature
    Bela Tsipuria The Figurative Language of Soviet Power and Georgian Literature Abstract: The Soviet language of power can be seen as a set of basic, universal codes with the special connotation of referring to major principles of Soviet ide- ology or social/political goals prioritized by the Communist Party. This language was developed in political discourse by the Party’s leading ideologists, and imple- mented within cultural/literary discourse. Ideological principles were often met- aphorized and implemented in canonical texts: speeches by Party leaders, cen- trally developed poems and songs, epic novels. After this, the codes were used in all the national cultures/languages of the USSR. Through the bearers of the ideol- ogy – bigger and smaller Party leaders, poets, prose writers, and songwriters – the messages of power were communicated to the Soviet people. Based on Georgian material, this article discusses the spread of one of the main metaphors related to the multinational composition of the USSR – the metaphor of the “united broth- erly family of the nations.” The metaphor carried not only a political meaning but also a hidden agenda of suggesting to Sovietized nations both views and verbal formulations, and how to deal with the existing political reality and the domi- nance of the Russian centre. In this sense, it was an imperial metaphor, related to the national question and the centre–periphery model of the USSR. Keywords: Georgian literature, metaphors/language of power, national question, Soviet ideology The Soviet totalitarian
    [Show full text]
  • A Historical-Geographic Review of Modern Abkhazia
    A Historical-Geographic Review of Modern Abkhazia by T. Beradze, K. Topuria, B Khorava Abkhazia (Abkhazeti) – the farthest North-Western part of Georgia is situated between the rivers Psou and Inguri on the coast of the Black Sea. The formation of Abkhazia within the borders is the consequence of complicated ethno-political processes. Humans first settled on the territory of modern Abkhazia during the Paleolithic Era. Abkhazia is the place where Neolithic, Bronze and Early Iron Eras are represented at their best. The first Georgian state – the Kingdom of Egrisi (Kolkheti), formed in 15. to 14. century BC, existed till the 2.century BC. It used to include the entire South-Eastern and Eastern parts of the Black Sea littoral for ages. The territory of modern Abkhazia was also a part of the Egrisi Kingdom. Old Greek historical sources inform us that before the new millennium, the territory between the rivers Psou and Inguri was only populated with tribes of Georgian origin: the Kolkhs, Kols, Svan-Kolkhs, Geniokhs. The Kingdom of Old Egrisi fell at the end of the 2.century BC and was never restored till 2.century AD. Old Greeks, Byzantines and Romans called this state - Lazika, the same Lazeti, which was associated with the name of the ruling dynasty. In 3. and 4. centuries AD, entire Western Georgia, including the territory of present Abkhazia, was part of this state. Based on the data of Byzantine authors, the South-East coastline part of the territory – between rivers Kodori and Inguri - belonged to the Odishi Duchy. The source of the Kodori River was occupied by the Georgian tribe of Misimians that was directly subordinated to the King of Egrisi (Lazeti).
    [Show full text]
  • XIX Saukune Saqartvelos Istoriasi Gardamtexi Epoqaa
    George Sanikidze G. Tsereteli Institute of Oriental Studies, Ilia State University, Georgia BETWEEN EAST AND WEST: 19TH C. FRENCH PERCEPTION OF GEORGIA The 19th century is a turning point in the history of Georgia. After its incorporation into the Russian Empire radical changes took place in the country. Europeans have taken an ever increasing interest in Georgia, specifically in its capital Tbilisi. This article discusses a change in France’s perception of Georgia and its capital during the nineteenth century. The nineteenth century French memoirs and records on Georgia can be divided into three basic groups. These groups reflect changes in the political and economic situation in the East-West relations which had immediate implications for Georgia. The first period coincides with the “Great Game” during the Napoleonic wars when Georgia inadvertently became part of France’s Eastern policy. The French sources on Georgia are comprised of so- called Treaty of Finkenshtein between France and Persia, French newspapers (Le moniteur, Journal de l’Empire, Nouvelles étrangères...) reporting, and data on Georgia by French envoys in Persia (General Ange de Gardane (1766–1818), Amadée Jaubert (1779-1847), Joseph Rousseau (1780-1831), Camille Alphonse Trézel (1880-1860)...). The second period was a time of taking interest economically in Georgia and its capital Tbilisi, which by then (especially under the so-called preferential tariff policy) had become a transit trade route for European goods going East, Iran in particular. In this regard an invaluable source is the work by the first French consul in Tbilisi Chevalier Jacques François Gamba (1763-1833). Although the economic activity of France in the Caucasus relatively slowed after the preferential tariff was revoked (1831), many French still traveled to Georgia.
    [Show full text]
  • Georgia [Republic]: Recent Developments and U.S
    Georgia [Republic]: Recent Developments and U.S. Interests Jim Nichol Specialist in Russian and Eurasian Affairs June 21, 2013 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov 97-727 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Georgia [Republic]: Recent Developments and U.S. Interests Summary The small Black Sea-bordering country of Georgia gained its independence at the end of 1991 with the dissolution of the former Soviet Union. The United States had an early interest in its fate, since the well-known former Soviet foreign minister, Eduard Shevardnadze, soon became its leader. Democratic and economic reforms faltered during his rule, however. New prospects for the country emerged after Shevardnadze was ousted in 2003 and the U.S.-educated Mikheil Saakashvili was elected president. Then-U.S. President George W. Bush visited Georgia in 2005, and praised the democratic and economic aims of the Saakashvili government while calling on it to deepen reforms. The August 2008 Russia-Georgia conflict caused much damage to Georgia’s economy and military, as well as contributing to hundreds of casualties and tens of thousands of displaced persons in Georgia. The United States quickly pledged $1 billion in humanitarian and recovery assistance for Georgia. In early 2009, the United States and Georgia signed a Strategic Partnership Charter, which pledged U.S. support for democratization, economic development, and security reforms in Georgia. The Obama Administration has provided ongoing support for Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The United States has been Georgia’s largest bilateral aid donor, budgeting cumulative aid of $3.37 billion in FY1992-FY2010 (all agencies and programs).
    [Show full text]
  • The Theater and Library in Tbilisi Austin Jersild Old Dominion University, [email protected]
    Old Dominion University ODU Digital Commons History Faculty Publications History 2002 The Dilemmas of Enlightenment in the Eastern Borderlands: The Theater and Library in Tbilisi Austin Jersild Old Dominion University, [email protected] Neli Melkadze Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/history_fac_pubs Part of the Cultural History Commons, and the European History Commons Repository Citation Jersild, Austin and Melkadze, Neli, "The Dilemmas of Enlightenment in the Eastern Borderlands: The Theater and Library in Tbilisi" (2002). History Faculty Publications. 35. https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/history_fac_pubs/35 Original Publication Citation Jersild, A., & Melkadze, N. (2002). The dilemmas of enlightenment in the eastern borderlands: The theater and library in Tbilisi. Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History, 3(1), 27-49. doi:10.1353/kri.2002.0012 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the History at ODU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in History Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of ODU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Dilemmas of Enlightenment in the Eastern Borderlands: The Theater and Library in Tbilisi* Austin Jersild and Neli Melkadze [The theater] cultivates taste, acquaints us with the works of great artists, with the ideas of geniuses, and presents to the crowd the beginnings of the fine arts, that is, the most noble aspirations of humanity. [Russian] G. S., Kavkaz, 1854 The awakening of the people is of no significance without theater and folk poetry. [Georgian] A. K., Droeba, 1876 The Russian field is quickly accumulating a wide variety of works on Russian imperialism.
    [Show full text]
  • Russia's Role in the Official Peace Process in South Ossetia
    Bulletin of Geography. Socio–economic Series No. 23 (2014): 53–71 Bulletin of GeoGraphy. Socio–economic SerieS journal homepages: http://www.bulletinofgeography.umk.pl http://versita.com/bgss ISSN 1732–4254 quarterly russia’s role in the official peace process in South ossetia tomáš hoch1, cDMR, emil Souleimanov2, cDMR, tomáš Baranec3,DMR 1University of Ostrava, Faculty of Science, Department of Human Geography and Regional Development, Chittussiho 10, 710 00 Ostrava, Czech Republic; phone: +420 775 232 959, e-mail: [email protected], (corresponding author); 2Charles University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Russian and East European Studies, U Kříže 8, 158 00 Praha 5 – Jinonice, Czech Republic, phone: +420 774 542 576, e-mail: [email protected]; 3The Caucasus Institute for Peace, Democracy and Development, Tsereteli Ave 72, 0154 Tbilisi, Georgia, e-mail: [email protected] Hoch, T., Souleimanov, E. and Baranec, T., 2014: Russia’s role in the official peace process in South Ossetia. In: Szymańska, D. and Biegańska, J. editors, Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series, No. 23, Toruń: Nicolaus Copernicus University Press, pp. 53–71. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/bog-2014-0004 abstract. The aim of this article is to analyse the role of Russia in the transfor- article details: mation of the Georgian-Ossetian conflict and analyse this important period in the Received: 05 August 2013 history of the Caucasus, where Georgia and its secessionist region of South Osse- Revised: 19 October 2013 tia have been trying to find a peaceful solution to their post-war situation. Major Accepted: 11 November 2013 milestones of the official peace process are set in the context of Russian-Georgian relations.
    [Show full text]