Relations between Russia and Central European countries at the background of domestic transformations and global crisis have passed several stages of development: their almost complete breakdown in the mid 1990-ies, had improved during the 2000-ies, but after the crisis in Ukraine has returned back towards the lowest point of the last 25 years. If in 1990-ies the state of relations had been largely determined by the countries themselves, now, in the absence of subjective reasons for their decline, they are forced to obey the new commitments dictated from Brussels. Against this background, the bilateral relations continue to influence the circumstances that can be associated rather with the formation of the foundations of the new policy and its ideological basis. The current situation, and mainly the crisis in Ukraine, as the country situated between us, had put a real call to our relationship. The ability to give an adequate answer to it would prove the maturity of our relations.

This article discusses the realization of the conception of the New Silk Road in the countries of East-Central Europe. Author in the introduction of the article described the idea of The New Silk Road and its six corridors. Then, it was depicted format “16+1” and its meaning for the realization of the Chinese conception in first part of the article. Moreover, it became underlined the meaning economic buildings „the Belt and Road” for the countries of Central-East-Europe. Author in second part represented Poland in the format „16+1” and her relation to the New Silk Road.

The article presents an analysis of the problems and prospects of relations between Russian Federation and Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). These relationships are discussed in broader political context of Russia's relations with the European Union. The author believes that in conflict situations the both parties are responsible. As an optimal strategy the author examines the possibility of linking the integration processes in the Eurasian region – the so-called "integration of integrations", that can become a framework for interfacing the national interests of Russia and the EU's interests. A special role in the normalization of relations in Eurasia the CEE countries are devoted to play – CEE may become a bridge between Russia and Western Europe.

The author addresses an important question of transformation in the field of foreign policy priorities made by Russian Federation, indicating both the causes, assumptions and ad hoc and prospective objectives of the newly announced strategy, which is a retreat from the West and the intensification of relations with the countries of Asia. This was largely a consequence of the crisis in the relations with the West, due to the annexation of the Crimea and the conflict in the east of Ukraine. However, explaining the motives of this policy, the Russian side tried to ignore the true impact of the Ukrainian crisis. As a whole, this new national strategy has been dubbed PovorotnaVostok. This strategy should boost economic growth, and above all play the role of the one of key instruments restoring Russia’s lost position as a global power. More broadly, the Russian shift towards Asia is based on the assumption that the long-term factor affecting the international situation will be strategic competition between China and United States, and that Asia in the near future will not be able to create of a coherent system of security. With this in mind, the Kremlin is trying to find a place for the realization of its vision of a new multipolar world order and actually is trying to play one state against another one. The leaders of Kremlin are of course aware of the shifting of the global economic balance of power towards Asia – Pacific, and they understand that Russia’s economic integration with the region has an essential importance for successful longterm development.

The essence of Russia’s relations with Belarus after the end of the 20th century boils down to a specific kind of balance. Thanks to its presence in the institutional forms of close cooperation such as the CSTO, the Union State or the Eurasian Economic Union Minsk enjoys the openness of Russian market and very low prices of imported resources (especially crude oil and gas). What Moscow receives in return can be classified as a sort of intangible goods: greater prestige and a „friendly hegemonic” position in international relations. The balance of the game falls in favor of Lukashenko who takes advantage of his country’s location between the Russian Federation and the EU: Moscow is permanently blackmailed with the possibility of Minsk’s hypothetical turn toward the Western partners.

Modern states use any means necessary that are provided by foreign policy. At this point, states more often use new means to implement foreign policy – there are, in a broad sense, soft power policies – public diplomacy and promotion of state’s international interests. While tasks of traditional diplomacy that are connected with state’s political security and military security have to be implemented by state’s central organs, however, all the rest can be and are implemented by decentralized self-government authorities. These new forms of diplomatic activity developed, especially, after the Cold War ended and can be classified as paradiplomacy i.e. the involvement of sub-national actors (regions) of the national states in international relations. Russian regions, including the Russian Far East, establish these forms of activity. However, legal conditions are quite alike, the practice between regions differs from each other. The general conclusion, which emerges from the analysis, points to the fact that many decisions concerning paradiplomacy are made by federal authorities and the level of regional authorities’ activity in new millennium has decreased comparing to the 1990s. This conclusion also concerns the Russian Far East.

The external surroundings of the Russian Far East – Asia-Pacific region is extremely active international actor. Russia looks with more concerns on the region and sees itself a strategic approach for further international activities. This approach is also important due to the Russian Far East international activity, however, any attempt at adding this region to East Asia integration concepts is inefficient. Problem is noted and the goal of Ministry of Foreign Policy of Russian Federation is to incorporate regional diplomacy to traditional diplomacy. In activity of regions is still ample potential, which is clearly noticeable. In 2013, the 5th program – The Far East and Trans-Baikal Socio-Economic Development Strategy to 2025 was adopted. However, there is a concern that this program may suffer the same fate as other unrealized programs to exploit potential and development of this region, if a few requirements, which are listed in paradiplomacy theoretical models, are not accomplished e.g. the strengthen of regional authorities. They are better in defining its needs and opportunities but they should efficiently cooperate with inhabitants living in these regions. However, the requirements are greater influence on their choice, greater trust and identifying with activities of authority.

Foreign activity (paradiplomacy) of local governments is one of the elements of Polish foreign policy and plays a special, positive role in the process of Polish integration with the European Union. This paper presents the results of the investigations concerning foreign activity of Polish local and regional governments with Russia. In particular, there is intensive cooperation with the Kaliningrad region, the only region bordering Poland and refers to the neighboring provinces of Warmia and Mazury and Pomorskie. Studies have shown, however, that 11 out of the 16 Polish provinces signed agreements with other regions of Russia and only 2 have no cooperation.

Solidarity as one of the main values of the European Union is also recognizedamong the guiding principles of the EU asylum policy. In the period of the migrationcrisis, this principle was the most important for the EU Member Statesand very difficult to implement. The purpose of this article is to analyze the concept of solidarity, as enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty, as well as in the positions of the Member States and EU institutions. The article highlights the current debate, initiated by the Visegrad group under the Slovakian Presidency in the Council, around the proposed “flexible” or “effective solidarity” in asylum policy. Thus, the author contributes to understanding the ways, problems and prospects of refugees’ relocation, as well as the upcoming reform of the Dublin system. Based on the study of the summits conclusions, Council meetings in its various formats, the EU leaders’ statements, the author considers that divergence not only of the Member States positions, but also those of the EU institutions on the specific forms of participation in managing migration and asylum could entail more fragmentation and differentiation within the Union. At the same time, the author reveals the contradiction in the Visegrad countries’ position: while dreaming about re-nationalization of asylum and engaging in confrontation with the Commission the CEE countries by no means intend to introduce and maintain border control within the Schengen area.

Geo-economics is an approach that, in general, looks at the links between politics and economy in the international arena. This article is an analyses overview of the presence of geo-economics strategy in the Polish-Russian relations. The author focuses particularly on the problems of investment, trade and energy.

W dniu 19 października w ramach szerszego projektu „Demokracja współczesna – wymiar polski i międzynarodowy” w Uniwersytecie Ekonomicznym w Krakowie odbyła się Międzynarodowa

Konferencja Naukowa „Współpraca demokratycznych krajów Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej z Federacją Rosyjską: nowe wyzwania”. Konferencję zorganizowała Katedra Nauk Politycznych UEK we współpracy z Fundacją Wsparcia Dyplomacji Publicznej im. M.A.M. Gorczakowa, Instytutem Europy Rosyjskiej Akademii Nauk i Fundacją GAP. Wsparcia konferencji udzieliło także Centrum Polsko-Rosyjskiego Dialogu i Porozumienia. Podczas konferencji prowadzono dyskusje w następujących obszarach:

• nowe uwarunkowanie geopolityczne a poszukiwanie współpracy między Rosją i krajami Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej;
• nowe podejście do analizy stanu stosunków Rosja–Europa Środkowo-Wschodnia;
• nowe wyzwania dla współpracy gospodarczej Rosji i krajów Europy Środkowej i Wschodniej;
• wpływ gospodarki, polityki, kultury i historii na poziom współpracy krajów EŚW i Rosji.

W poznawaniu współczesnej rzeczywistości międzynarodowej szczególnie nośne są przemiany ustrojowe dokonujące się w Rosji, a w tym procesy zapoczątkowane w 1985 r. określane mianem pieriestrojki, których architektem politycznym był Michaił Gorbaczow (ur. 1931 r.). W prezentowanej monografii z dużą starannością prezentuje się złożone procesy odchodzenia od rzeczywistości politycznej budowanej przez prawie 70 lat w Związku Radzieckim do nowego ładu ustrojowego, postrzeganego przez pryzmat biografii politycznej Michaiła Gorbaczowa jako jego budowniczego. We wstępie do monografii podkreśla się, że niełatwo poddać ocenie reformy przeprowadzone w tak ogromnym i zróżnicowanym państwie. Niejednoznaczne są też opinie o ich autorze, który przez swoich współobywateli jest często dyskredytowany, a za granicą jest doceniany i wyróżniany.

Prawa człowieka wciąż pozostają wdzięcznym tematem badawczym nie tylko dla prawników, ale też politologów, filozofów czy specjalistów stosunków międzynarodowych. Należy jednak zauważyć, że naukowa refleksja nad wizją funkcjonowania i ochrony praw człowieka w Azji ani ilościowo, ani jakościowo nie dorównuje analizie tej problematyki w kontekście europejskim, międzyamerykańskim czy nawet afrykańskim, dostępnej w polskim dyskursie akademickim. Wiąże się to przede wszystkim z brakiem regionalnego systemu ochrony praw człowieka na kontynencie azjatyckim (zwłaszcza w rozumieniu zbliżonym do systemów Rady Europy, Organizacji Państw Amerykańskich lub Unii Afrykańskiej), a także z zasadniczą odmiennością kulturową od świata euroatlantyckiego, ale i bogatym wewnętrznym zróżnicowaniem państw Azji, co z pewnością nie ułatwia prowadzenia kompleksowych badań.