|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
113417
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This paper addresses the issue of asymmetric energy relations between the Czech Republic and the Russian Federation. The theory of interdependence is a widely used concept in political and economic studies of international relations. As can be seen from the analysis of Czech-Russian energy relations and its costs and benefits, the interdependence cannot be limited to a situation of equal interdependence. Energy sensitivity and vulnerability of the Czech Republic towards Russia is considered as a key source of power for the energy policy of Russia vis-à-vis the Czech Republic. The evidence for this claim can be found in the procedures and expressions of Russia's energy policy. On the other hand, the energy policy of the Czech Republic is influenced by the European Union and its focus on the liberalization of the energy market, diversification of the currently existing transportation routes and legislative proposals aimed at strengthening the EU's own energy security. The European Union significantly contributes to an increase of the energy security of the Czech Republic. The European Union and regional cooperation (such as the V4 group) could balance out the asymmetry of interdependence, thus lowering the sensitivity and vulnerability of the Czech Republic towards Russia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
146066
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
According to BP statistics, Iran has the world's largest reserves of natural gas and its fourth-largest reserves of oil. Its strategic geographic position makes it capable of supplying these resources to Europe, its Middle Eastern neighbors, and South and East Asian countries.1 Yet, the difficult geopolitical situation around its nuclear program and the poor management of its energy industry have prevented it from becoming a gas exporter to the European Union (EU).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
167128
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The article explores the energy security relations between the Russian Federation and the European Union. The focus, however, is not on the technical and institutional aspects of the relationship, but rather on the discursive approach that determines the prevailing interpretations of the relationship by the two parties. The aim of this article is to analyze the content and basic themes of the Russian diversification discourse on energy relations with the European Union in 2004–2018. At the theoretical level, the article is based on critical constructivism, which, in relation to the discourse, and security as the main concepts, reflects a number of pieces of fundamental knowledge. At the methodological level, the article is based on thematic analysis. In the article, it is the main method of data analysis through which we examine the content of the Russian diversification discourse on the energy relations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
121295
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The paper explores the dominant interpretations of the EU-Russian energy relations by identifying three dominant concepts around which these interpretations revolve: (1) integration, (2) liberalization, and (3) diversification. Building on a detailed discourse analysis of 97 textual units produced by EU leaders and institutions and 104 documents and speeches by Russian policy-makers, the paper argues that these three discourses differ widely in their assessment of the two partners' mutual ties, both in terms of the relationship's symmetry and the perceived benefits for each partner. The paper comes up with two basic arguments. First, in spite of the shared usage of the three basic notions by both sides, the interpretations of each of the discourses are widely different in the EU and in Russia, which causes continuous frictions and misunderstandings. Second and surprisingly, the discourse of integration is dominant both in the EU and Russia, which shows that the claims about the alleged securitization of EU-Russian energy relations are clearly exaggerated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
171443
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The article explores the energy relations between the Russian Federation and the V4 countries. The focus, however, is not on the technical and institutional aspects of the relationship, but rather on the discursive approach that determines the prevailing interpretations of the relationship by the two parties. The aim of this article is to analyze and interpret the content and main themes of the Russian energy discourse on the energy relations with the V4 countries, as well as Russia's perception of V4 countries in 2008–2018. At the methodological level, the article is based on discourse analysis as the main method through which the content of the Russian energy discourse on the energy relations with the V4 countries is examined and analyzed. The main sources of data for the discourse analysis are the official statements and press releases published by the central authorities of the RF and the speeches and interviews of political representatives of Russia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
135921
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Russian security and foreign policy in the period of Medvedev’s presidency in 2008–2012 was characterized by profound ambivalence. On the one hand, Medvedev promoted the concept of a multilateral world order with a ‘new Russia’—as a restorative power—representing one of its leading centers. On the other hand, the Russian President decided to launch a military campaign against Georgia in August 2008 and subsequently ordered the reform of the Russian armed forces and the modernization of its weapon systems. The Russian president also continued to exaggerate threats to Russian national security and emphasize the possibility of using nuclear weapons. A specific feature of Russian foreign policy of this period was the tendency to use the supplies of energy resources as a political tool. At the same time, it can be observed that although the security cooperation between Russia and the US and NATO was re-established, mutual security relations remained burdened by a number of contentious issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|