Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 11

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
Donald Trump’s presidency proved to be a great challenge for the transatlantic community. One of the factors of the breakdown in American-European relations was the change of US strategy towards Europe, resulting from Trump’s approach to international relations, in which the narrowly understood American interest counts the most. In this new situation, Germany has lost the position of a close and valuable partner of the USA, and has become a dangerous economic and commercial competitor, or a financial burden in terms of security. Germany’s tactics in the face of increasing tension in mutual relations and the crisis in transatlantic relations consisted of either attempting to settle the dispute or shifting the burden of negotiations with the US on the European Union forum, and finally assertiveness towards some of Trump’s demands. Germany also returned to the concept of building Europe’s strategic autonomy and taking over the role of a global player by the EU, which does not change the fact that European security capabilities will be insufficient and ineffective for a long time without American support.
PL
Prezydentura Donalda Trumpa okazała się wielkim wyzwaniem dla wspólnoty transatlantyckiej. Jednym z czynników załamania w relacjach amerykańsko-europejskich była zmiana strategii USA wobec Europy, wynikająca z podejścia Trumpa do stosunków na arenie międzynarodowej, w którym liczy się przede wszystkim wąsko pojmowany interes amerykański. W tej nowej sytuacji Niemcy straciły pozycję bliskiego i cennego partnera USA, a stały się groźnym konkurentem gospodarczym i handlowym, finansowym obciążeniem w zakresie bezpieczeństwa. Taktyka Niemiec wobec narastającego napięcia we wzajemnych stosunkach oraz kryzysu w relacjach transatlantyckich polegała na albo na próbie łagodzenia sporu, albo przerzucaniu ciężaru negocjacji z USA na forum Unii Europejskiej, wreszcie asertywności wobec niektórych żądań administracji Trumpa. Powrócono też w Niemczech do koncepcji budowy autonomii strategicznej Europy i przejęcia przez UE roli globalnego gracza, co nie zmienia faktu, że długo jeszcze europejskie możliwości w z akresie bezpieczeństwa – bez amerykańskiego wsparcia – będą niewystarczające i nieskuteczne.
EN
The European Union with its obvious trump cards should be an active and efficient player on the international arena. Such are the expectations of the United States formulated especially by the administration of Barack Obama. However, from the American perspective, the EU did not prove successful as an important international actor, engaged in resolving global problems and prepared to assume greater responsibility for the course of events in the world. This inertia of the EU resulted in a marginalization of Europe in American politics, as manifested by the latter’s pivot to the Pacific Rim. Only developments in the Ukraine which are an effect of imperial tendencies in Russia’s activity triggered greater activity and coherence in American and European politics. But today it is still difficult to foresee whether the EU will want to live up to the role of an efficient player on the international arena in accord with American expectations.
3
Content available remote

Relacje amerykańsko-niemieckie w erze Merkel

100%
EN
American-German relations are an important pillar of the USA’s involvement in Europe. However, they underwent a period of slump during the presidency of G.W. Bush, when G. Schröder was the Chancellor of Germany. Chancellor Angela Merkel not only renewed close relations with Washington, but also – seeing them as a factor strengthening the position of Germany on the international arena – managed to build an American-German partnership. Her relations with President Bush can be considered good, but with President Obama – excellent. The latter regarded Merkel to be his best partner and an outstanding leader. The Trump presidency, in turn, is a difficult experience for the German side, arousing concern about the future of mutual relations.
4
100%
EN
The United States took upon themselves the effort to shape the postwar international order already during the Second World War. Therefore the end of the war made a demand on the American politics to meet new challenges on the international arena. The enormous potential of the USA in 1945 and a new geopolitical situation, the threat posed by the Soviet Union included, compelled America to assume the role of a global power with all its consequences. Only the United States could cope with the new responsibilities in international relations. It meant for America a departure from its traditional principle of isolationism and involvement in world affairs on an unprecedented scale. In this way America became for the n ext decades a major if not the main creator and factor of international order.
EN
The article discusses the participation of the United States and personally President Th.W. Wilson in the shaping of the new order in Europe after World War I. By analyzing the source material and referring to the literature of the subject the author attempted to answer the question: Which elements of the then current American conception of international relations were implemented in the hammering out of the Versailles Order and which were rejected and why? Assuming that some of the conceptions survived, even those which were not realized at the time, the forms of their continuation are described. The author attempts to demonstrate that being active on the international arena and performing the role of a world leader, the US has repeatedly drawn on the idea of Wilsonism, often treating it as a justification of controversial actions motivated by America’s particular interest. On the other hand, much of President Wilson’s vision permanently entered international relations becoming a valuable legacy of his involvement with the peace conference.
EN
American-German relations have undergone palpable metamorphosis in the last twenty years. On the one hand it results from the united Germany's growing importance on the international arena, a conviction that Germany is becoming a 'normal' state that articulates its national interests with greater confidence and often independently of American expectations. On the other hand, we have witnessed the emergence of new determinants of America's position and role in the world. The image of the United States - especially during the presidency of G. W. Bush - was markedly impaired, which even led to a 'poisoning' of mutual relations between the two countries and eventually changed their character. Germany became a more independent partner, respected in Washington.
7
Content available remote

A TIME OF GREAT TURBULENCE (Czas wielkich zawirowan)

100%
EN
The two last decades have been exceptionally eventful. The end of the cold war, symbolized by the collapse of the Berlin wall in 1989 triggered historic changes on the international scene. The processes that were underway accelerated, others were launched, new phenomena and challenges emerged, 'dormant' antagonisms erupted with sometimes enormous force, new and so far unknown threats appeared. Although in many aspects the world has changed for the better (there is more integration, the sphere of democracy and free market has expanded) we have also been faced with many difficult and complex problems (terrorism, growing nationalism, imperial aspirations). That is why the situation in the world today demands from the international community greater solidarity, decisiveness, and well thought-out actions.
EN
The European Union with its obvious trump cards should be an active and efficient player on the international arena. Such are the expectations of the United States formulated especially by the administration of Barack Obama. However, from the American perspective, the EU did not prove successful as an important international actor, engaged in resolving global problems and prepared to assume greater responsibility for the course of events in the world. This inertia of the EU resulted in a marginalization of Europe in American politics, as manifested by the latter’s pivot to the Pacific Rim. Only developments in the Ukraine which are an effect of imperial tendencies in Russia’s activity triggered greater activity and coherence in American and European politics. But today it is still difficult to foresee whether the EU will want to live up to the role of an efficient player on the international arena in accord with American expectations.
9
100%
EN
The world leadership of the United States has recently undergone a significant evolution. At the end of the Cold War the USA was the only superpower, exerting immense influence on the resolution of global and regional problems. In the 1990s America continued to maintain its dominant role in the world. The dynamism of events at the onset of the 21st century, mistakes in American policy and a changing international environment markedly weakened the USA’s capacity and readiness to tackle challenges and solve problems. America expected support and greater involvement on the part of its allies/partners in fulfilling its obligations on the international arena. Thus, the future of the American leadership remains an open question.
EN
A stable and democratic Russia that cooperated with the West after the collapse of the Soviet Union, was seen by the United States as a key component of the new European order and a strategic challenge to American policy. The article provides a historical analysis of the 1990s Russian policy of the Clinton administration. The study’s main focus is on American efforts to make Russia a strategic partner in international affairs. The major objective of the research is to find answers to questions about the determinants, assumptions and goals of the „strategic partnership” policy. The main purpose is to evaluate the US administration’s too positive and optimistic stance. The reasons why the Americans abandoned the idea of forming a „strategic partnership” in favor of a „two-track” policy are also explained. According to the general consensus at the time, the latter was a contributing factor to the NATO membership of the first countries from Central and Eastern Europe. The main research method used in developing this topic is a critical and comparative analysis of documents, speeches of politicians and diplomats, literature on the subject, contemporary press and online resources.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.