Moscow and Kyiv vision of the interpretation of disputes about the past of the continuity of the historical roots of mutual statehood

Russian Federation’s attack of February 24, 2022 on Ukraine was no coincidence but a strategy to regain the status of superpower. Referring to history was its significant part. Indeed, that is a shared history, at least in the origin, though differently interpreted by both states, independent from 31 years. Based on the promoted from 16th Century vision of Russia as the Byzantine Empire’ successor, Putin’s Russian Federation claims the right to build an empire that would include all lands of the Russian Empire. It does not recognise independent statehood and Ukrainian nationality. The war was started to achieve that goal.

This article presents the results of research which set out to clarify the principles of the use of nuclear weapons and deterrence mechanisms in order to achieve dominance by the Russian Federation in the international security environment. Analysis and criticism of the literature, nonparticipatory observation and elements of case study were used to solve the research problems. The research process established that the Russian Federation will conduct campaigns to undermine the existing international security order using military means, including nuclear weapons. The nuclear component is an inherent element of the Russian Federation’s policy shaping the international security environment and at the same time is a key factor in the holistic concept of coercion. Strategic deterrence is a mechanism for achieving international dominance in peacetime, crisis situations, and war. Its purpose is to bring about concessions and coerce behavior consistent with the strategic interests of the Russian Federation. Nuclear weapons are the ultimate guarantee of the Russian Federation’s strategic dominance in the world. On the other hand, the constantly lowered threshold of its use leads to the degradation of the security environment and the violation of its stability.

Consolidation of the political system as a source of Russian political behavior in the international environment

The contemporary Russian Federation is undergoing a process of democratic regression and a return to the socio-political authoritarianism, traditional to the Russian political system. The detachment of decision-making processes from the will of the citizens means that elites follow their own logic of action while remaining outside democratic control. Thus, all decisions are taken in the interests of the elites, most of whom come from the secret services and the military. The consolidation of the political regime, the regression of democracy in Russian conditions, promotes a return to great power thinking and thus encourages aggressive behaviour. In the article, the author points out that the aggression against Ukraine, undertaken in January 2022, was preceded by a long-term process of consolidation of the political system and elimination from its structure of any check and balance mechanisms allowing democratic control over political decision-making processes.

The natural resource sector has become a dominant part of the Russian economy and thus affected the political developments of the state greatly. Understanding of the interplay of Russian politics and economics after the fall of the Soviet Union is integral for understanding why Russia has developed steadily into a more autocratic direction during the past few decades. The phenomenon through which we will be analyzing the intertwining of political and economic spheres of Russia is the natural resource curse concept. We seek to understand what factors have contributed to Russia’s failure to avoid the natural resource curse and give examples on how the natural resource curse manifests itself especially in today’s Russia political reality. Does the abundance of natural resources contribute to the emergence of a hyper-presidential, autocratic regime in Russia?

Undoubtedly, Russia occupies a distinct position within the political landscape, differentiating it from Western democracies that themselves exhibit considerable variation. This uniqueness can be attributed, in part, to Russia’s geographic characteristics, encompassing diverse subdivisions characterized by variations in population, natural resources, territorial expanse, and distance from the central authority. However, what truly distinguishes Russia is its contemporary history and recent experiences with federalization— a framework that has defined its operations since it became the Russian Federation following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The objective of this paper is to analyze the distinctive features of Russian federalism in its early stages, employing a comparative perspective against the Spanish case, in order to ascertain the consequences of the legal, organizational, and territorial arrangements established during Russia’s early democratization period. The focus is to evaluate the implications of these changes on the establishment of a legally-binding democracy and a well-functioning federation, ultimately questioning whether Russia genuinely qualifies for either of these classifications.

Russian “historical policy” towards Poland. The “Anti-Katyń” issue

The Russian Federation ruled by Putin seeks to rebuild the superpower position of the USSR, formerly the Russian Empire. A certain difficulty for her is Poland’s attitude and its eastern policy. Hence the use of information warfare means to combat it, including a specific “historical policy” whose origins date back centuries. Due to the need to admit to committing the Katyn massacre, in order to weaken its meaning, the “Anti-Katyń” issue was promoted, based on the alleged genocide of Poles on Russian prisoners of war in 1919–1920. This is a propaganda invention not confirmed by historical facts.

This paper aim to explore that Russian propaganda has a long historical tradition and a rich instrumentarium. The development of the internet and social media has increased the possibilities for distributing propaganda messages. The principal objective of Russian propaganda is to influence the public opinion in cooperation with persons acting as translators, and to distribute contents – in various national languages – in conformity with the Russian policy and ideology. A tangible objective is to change the opinion about the Russian Federation and its policy so that one negative opinion is matched with at least three positive ones.

Russian Disinformation and Propaganda Campaign Justifying the Annexing of Crimea in 2014

On February 26, 2014, the Russian Federation annexed the Crimean Peninsula. Russia’s unlawful actions have been condemned in the international arena, but this has in no way changed the decision of the authorities in the Kremlin. In order to prove the legitimacy of the occupation of Crimea, the Russian Federation launched a disinformation and propaganda campaign aimed primarily at the internal arena, i.e. at the Russians. The aim of the article is to analyze selected statements by Vladimir Putin regarding the annexation of Crimea and to try to answer the question of whether disinformation and internal propaganda were effective in convincing Russians that the occupation of Crimea was an act of restoring historical justice. For the purposes of the article, research methods appropriate for international relations were used.

The collapse of the USSR resulted in the decomposition of the security system in the post-Soviet Region. The states established after the collapse of the USSR were looking for new security guarantees, fearing for the future, especially at the beginning of shaping their statehood. However, the Russian Federation sought to reintegrate the post-Soviet area for historical and political reasons. Its goal was to subjugate the post-Soviet states and maintain its sphere of influence in the region. It created the Collective Security Treaty Organization, which was to be an institutional form of integration of the countries of the post-Soviet area under the leadership of Russia. Its actions were also aimed at eliminating the influence of European countries and the PRC in this region. The main aim of the article is to analyze the military and political activities of the Collective Security Treaty Organization and the importance of the Russian Federation in it. The article presents the main decision-making bodies of the organization, political processes and actions undertaken by the CSTO. It also pays attention to a significant challenge for the CSTO created by the armed intervention of the Russian Federation in Ukraine in 2022.

The article considers the issue of the migration crisis of Ukrainian refugees to EU member states caused by Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022. An elucidation was made as to the quantity of Ukrainian refugees taken in by European states since the Russia’s full-scale military invasion of Ukraine commenced. An analysis of forms of protection for individuals in the European Union is conducted, including refugee status and temporary protection. The legislation of refugee status in the EU is represented through the prism of the analysis of the Council Directive 2001/55/EC on temporary protection. The key difference between temporary protection and refugee status is defined. The key problems faced by European countries are highlighted; concurrently, the obstacles experienced by Ukrainian refugees are presented, namely, obtaining housing and employment. Special attention was paid to the issue of “fatigue” and exhaustion of social systems and ordinary citizens in EU countries. The authors present the results of the study on the mechanisms of providing protection and asylum to Ukrainian refugees in the EU. Furthermore, the 10-point strategy suggested by the European Commission to the European Council and the Justice and Home Affairs Council in order to support EU countries in their endeavor of admitting Ukrainian refugees has been duly given attention. The core research objectives revolve around the effectiveness of protection mechanisms for Ukrainian refugees in the EU, and any consequences said system may bring about for both the EU and Ukraine.

Memory nodes. The issue of the Katyn massacre in Polish-Russian relations

The article focuses on discussing the impact of the conditions regarding the Katyn massacre on the current relations between Warsaw and Moscow. The history of these two countries is characterized by a long and difficult past, which is why numerous unresolved disputes, burdens and myths have arisen and are still visible today, negatively affecting bilateral contacts. In 1989, right after the fall of the communist system in Poland, the new political elites, coordinating the process of democratic changes in our country, made efforts to sort out the controversial threads in the common Polish-Russian history. Without a doubt, the most important of them was the Katyn massacre. For the political elites of the Third Polish Republic, explaining the overall circumstances of those events was the most important goal of diplomatic activities undertaken towards the Kremlin. In Warsaw’s opinion, untangling this knot of memory from the history of relations between the two countries was supposed to help free them from past burdens and negative accumulations and contribute to strengthening friendship in current times. Unfortunately, it quickly turned out that this topic soon became one of the main elements negatively burdening mutual relations.

The aim of this paper is to analyse the military importance of the Kaliningrad Oblast. The geostrategic location of the Kaliningrad Oblast determines its military importance on a global, regional and local scale. The exclave is a kind of ‘barometer” that determines the state of relations between Russia and the West, which translates into the level of security in the Euro-Atlantic area. On the one hand, the region bordering the countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the European Union is extremely important for ensuring Russia’s security and significantly increases the strategic depth in the western direction. Secondly, the military potential deployed in the Kaliningrad Oblast poses the greatest threat to the Baltic states and Poland.