The American strategy to combat the ‘Islamic State’ rests on four pillars. The first is to conduct systematic air campaigns against the terrorists. The second involves increasing support for forces fighting the jihadists on the ground. The third is based on the strengthening of international cooperation in counter–terrorism operations. The fourth involves the provision of humanitarian aid to civilians displaced from the territories occupied by the jihadists. This article analyzes the assumptions, tactics, the most important decisions and actions of the American administration to combat the ‘Islamic State’. It is an attempt to provide answers to the questions: why has there been a growth of extremism in the Middle East? Why is the ‘Islamic State’ a new form of terrorist threat? How does it differ from other terrorist organizations? How was the ‘Islamic State’ created? What actions have been taken by the international coalition led by the United States in the fight against the jihadists in the Middle East? Is the strategy taken up by the United States effective? Does the defeat of the ‘Islamic State’ require the involvement of US ground forces in Iraq and Syria?

Freedom of possessing and expressing own ideas and opinions and their dissemination is one of the fundamental rights, that entitled to each person. In addition to this, the freedom enables searching and getting information. Thanks to it, the right to express your own identity, selfrealization and aspiring to truth are guaranteed. It is one of the basic premise and the necessary condition to realize the idea of democracy. In the United States, the cradle of civil rights and modern democracy, the freedom of expression is guaranteed in the First Amendment to American Constitution (Bill of Rights), enacted in 1789 (came into force in 1791). On its virtue, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of (…) the freedom of speech, or of the press (…).” Although the record suggested that this freedom is absolute, (not restricted of any legislation), the later jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court (by case law) isolated categories of utterances that have not been contained by the First Amendment. ! e essential issues are answers on the following questions: in the name of what values Congress can limit the First Amendment? And where is the border of freedom of speech? One of the expressions that are not protected by the law is fi ghting words and hate words. The second are libel and slanders that are understood as a infringement of somebody’s rights.

The end of special relationships between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia?

The Saudi special relationships with the U.S., unlike that of the U.S. with Israel, are mutually beneficial. Saudi Arabia sells about 10 million barrels of oil a day and all those transactions are denominated in American dollars, which helps that currency to perform the role of the currency of account (world, s currency) and has been of crucial help to the American ambition to dominate the global economy. On the other hand the United States did its part to uphold the relationship be granting the security to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf oil states. This was demonstrated for example in 1990 during Iraqi attack on Kuwait, that also menaced Saudi Arabia. At that time the U.S. deployed 400,000 troops in Saudi Arabia and expelled Iraqi troops from Kuwait. The priority of American foreign policy in that region has been to keep Gulf oil in friendly hands. Since the increase of the production of shale oil in the United States that priority has been less important. Another factor which has exerted an influence on the nature of the U.S.-Saudi relationship was the signing the permanent agreement with Iran in July 2015 on the limitation of the Iranian nuclear program and normalization of political-economic relations with the West. This has led to further worsening of the U.S.-Saudi Arabia alliance which has always been like a ”marriage of convenience” where behind the façade of friendship and harmony there is cold calculation of benefi ts and losses. That alliance will last as long as the potential benefi ts will still be bigger than possible losses.

Politics of Saudi Arabia and the United States against the civil war in Syria – a convergence or divergence of interests?

The policy of Saudi Arabia and the United States towards Syria since 2011 is full of paradoxes. On the one hand, both countries are in favor of overthrowing the regime of Bashar al-Assad and reducing the influence of Iran and Russia in Syria, but on the other hand there are discrepancies in the approach of Washington and Riyad to the Syrian question, which was particularly visible during the presidency of Barack Obama. The issue of financing the opposition groups fighting in Syria, but most of all the problem of launching land intervention in a war-stricken country was among the contentious issues. The Kingdom, as an advocate of intervention, has repeatedly called on Washington to take more decisive steps to overthrow al-Assad and combat the so-called Islamic State. However, the other problems facing the White House and Riyadh, which affect the solution of the Syrian question, are nowadays a priority in the policies of the United States and Saudi Arabia, in contrast to the war in Syria.

Constitutional Oversight of Government Surveillance in the United States

The aim of the article is the analysis of constitutional oversightof the government surveillance in the United States. Referring to Snowden affair and COVID-19 surveillance, the Author discusses the challenges faced by the legislative and judicial branches in pursuing control over the executive’s national security policies. Focusing on the rule of secrecy and other constitutional doctrines and privileges, he tries to explain why effective control of government surveillance is today impossible.

The relationship between the two countries has been a complex and diverse subject of investigation and contemplation. The interconnection between the two countries can be described by the following central notions, such as economic cooperation, rivalry in terms of status acquisition of global hegemonic power, particularly in the Pacific region and beyond controversy mutual suspicion over each other’s intentions. Therefore, it is clearly justified that each state has elaborated and adopted a specific manner of conduct and attitude regarding each other as a potential adversary but has meanwhile maintained an extremely strong economic partnership. It is fair to state, that the relationship between both countries has been described by multiple world leaders and academics as the world’s most significant bilateral relationship of the 21st century. Due to the fact that Chinese economy has started to develop increasingly fast and PRC has strengthened its positions on the world’s arena, the United States started to perceive the Middle Kingdom as a direct threat to the established world order in its drive for regional hegemony in East Asia now as well as future aspirant for global supremacy. Beijing, by contrast rejects these notions, and continues its assertive policies and its quest for allies.

The election of Joseph Biden for the office of the President of the United States has brought expectations of fundamental change in American foreign policy, including policy toward the Asia-Pacific/Indo-Pacific region. As observed in the last few months, the reality has been more complex as definite changes in the US Indo-Pacific policy are not as visible as expected. It is especially in respect of the US policy toward China being more a continuation than a change from Donald Trump’s approach. Changes are rhetorical rather than actual policies. The situation is different in the case of alliances, as Joe Biden offers much more commitment to allies like Japan or South Korea. Also, multilateral dimensions (both regional and global) witness some – however still limited – change. The main goal is to make a comparative analysis of Joe Biden’s policy toward Asia, referring to the administrations of Barack Obama and Donald Trump. Hence the strategies of pivot/re-balance toward the Asia of Obama, and the free and open Indo-Pacific strategy of Trump, will be examined. The analysis refers to the complex interdependence theory and the power transition theory. Methodologically, it is based on document analysis with comparative analysis.

Strategic ambiguity, or the deliberate policy of uncertainty as to whether the United States would use force to defend Taiwan against an invasion by the People's Republic of China, has been the centrepiece of US policy towards the Taiwan issue for decades. This paper discusses the factors driving the redefinition of strategic ambiguity and its recalibration throughout Donald Trump's presidency (2017–2021). The fundamental driver of this change was to balance the rising power of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The paper applied offensive realism as a theoretical framework for its analysis. Under President Donald Trump, Washington modified its policy of strategic ambiguity, explicitly framing relations with Taiwan within a broader Indo-Pacific strategy. While the US retained key elements of strategic ambiguity, including the 'One China' policy, it added new features to deploy it offensively against Beijing's growing regional hegemony. The increased dynamism and unpredictability of relations with Taiwan were matched by a welcoming attitude towards strengthening Taiwanese identity and highlighting the systemic differences between communist China and democratic Taiwan. America stepped up arms sales and encouraged Taiwan to build its self-defence capabilities. Washington engaged in countering Chinese attempts to isolate Taiwan internationally and included it in restructuring global supply chains. Although the United States has not formally revised the boundaries of the 'One China' policy, the modification of strategic ambiguity increased Taiwan's prominence in US-China power competition and pushed back the prospect of peaceful unification.

The subject of the article is to analyze how Poland reacts to the US-Chinese competition for primacy over 5G technology. The importance of 5G systems has acquired a geopolitical dimension. Poland also feels its technological security dilemma. The acceptance by the Polish authorities of Washington’s position on 5G was undoubtedly an element of the negotiations on increasing the size of the American contingent in Poland. There are indications that decisions on how to treat Huawei in our country will be made on the basis of strong allied ties. At one time Poland seemed to be balancing between US pressure and China, but now it has sided decisively on the American side. The question still remains open: will the Polish state be able to fully open itself to the transatlantic allied relationship to benefit from this cooperation?

America’s unipolar balance of power created after the end of the Cold War is inevitably coming to an end. The dynamic economic growth of the People’s Republic of China, lasting uninterruptedly since the 1980s, the reconstruction of spheres of influence by the Russian Federation, the world war on terrorism with the accompanying costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, economic crises systematically weakening the economies of Western countries in 2001, 2007 and 2020, and the COVID-19 pandemic – these are just some of the many causes of geopolitical changes. Parallel to the weakening position of the United States, countries such as the Russian Federation are increasingly boldly challenging the current balance of power, provoking armed conflicts and destabilizing countries located in Central and Eastern Europe. The purpose of this article is to present the American Multi-Domain Operation concept as a response to the Russian concept of new generation warfare by which the country successfully led to the annexation of Crimea, the war in Donbas, and the political destabilization of Ukraine. The main research problem resulting from the assumed goal was to answer the following question: what is a Multi-Domain Operation and how do the United States intend to compete and win in the armed conflict taking place in Central and Eastern Europe with the Russian Federation? The following research methods were used to solve the research problems: the method of cause-effect and institutional-legal analysis, method of examining documents, and the method of analysis and criticism of literature. The monographic and comparative methods were also used. However, the main role was played by deductive reasoning which enables the identification of facts based on an in-depth analysis of source data. Taking into account the preliminary research, the author proposed the following research hypothesis: a Multi-Domain Operation is another American operational concept describing the security environment, and the Russian and American way of war. The USA will achieve victory in a possible armed conflict by locating and neutralizing the enemy’s anti-access – area denial capabilities, and then destroying its forces in the disputed area.

The significance of maritime interactions has impacted coastal and landlocked countries. Nepal’s response to the US-led Indo-Pacific Strategy (IPS) signifies the same. For Nepal, crossing seas was culturally associated with sin as an objective to fulfill the isolationist policy adopted until the political change of 1950. As such, Nepal’s interaction with the sea was not so friendly in the past. However, these historical shreds of evidence cannot suffice as the reason behind her denial of joining the IPS. Most of the available literature divulges the sensitive geographical position of Nepal in the context of the rise of China and the projection of a ‘new Cold War’ for its reluctance to join the Indo-Pacific strategy. However, they fail to probe into the domestic intricacies contributing to the hesitation. In this context, this paper primarily tries to dwell upon the actors and factors that have influenced Nepal’s dubiety in joining the Indo-Pacific Strategy. Thus, this paper aims to fulfill two objectives. First, to analyze the role of geographical sensitivity, and second, to scrutinize the domestic interplay of things. As exploratory qualitative research, this study reviews the official documents, agreements, statements, speeches, and reports from think tanks and newspapers to hypothesize that besides external factors there are integral internal elements that have played a part in Nepal’s denial to join the strategic partnership.

The Philippines during Rodrigo Duterte’s Rule: Rivalry between the United States and China

The rivalry of great powers between the United States and China embraces all regions of the world, including Southeast Asia and especially the Philippines. The President of the Philippines Rodrigo Duterte (2016–2022) at the beginning of his presidency started to diminish the dependence of the country on former colonial power the US and to improve relations with China. Duterte hoped for the increase of economic cooperation and support of Beijing for modernization of infrastructures. Despite some successes in his policy, Duterte finally started to search again for support from the US. It was the result of extremely strong links and dependency between armed forces of Philippines and United States and generally very strong pro American filling of many Filipinos, the second reason was slowness of realization of some Chinese investments in the country, brutality and aggressiveness of Chinese coast guards towards Philippine fishers, and probably also some weakness in Chinese policy to the Philippines. Finally, Duterte obtained good results. The US confirmed readiness for military support in case of foreign aggression (especially in the South China Sea) and China was involved in political and economic cooperation with the Philippines.

The main priorities of President Andrzej Duda’s foreign policy

In the present state of the political system, the powers of the Polish president to conduct an independent foreign policy are quite limited. But, in the case of the Andrzej Duda presidency, there are certain areas in which his activities between 2015–2021 were dominant, however. It mainly concerned the Three Seas Initiative, the aim of which is to integrate the economy and infrastructure of Central European countries. The Polish president was and still is the main architect of this project. Moreover, he plays an important role in shaping Poland’s relations with Ukraine, and above all with the United States. It should be noted that in the latter cases, they were closely related to another scope partly within the remit of the Polish president – security policy.

The article is devoted to the analysis of the United Kingdom’s foreign policy after its withdrawal from the European Union, which finally took place on February 1, 2020. Brexit made it necessary to redefine British foreign policy, including modification of the strategy aimed not only at maintaining but even strengthening the global position of the United Kingdom. A key element of this new strategy seems to be the strengthening of the US-British alliance, traditionally referred to as the Special Relationship. The author tries to prove the thesis that for the British government, reinforcing the cooperation with the United States is one of the most important ways to counteract the negative effects of Brexit. The experience so far shows, however, that it is not so easy, because after leaving the European Union, the United Kingdom has become for the United States, for many reasons, an increasingly less attractive partner.

Philosophical traditions impact on social policy: Comparing Poland and the United States

Healthcare policies for people with developmental disabilities (PWDD) in both the United States of America and the Republic of Poland have evolved from socially conservative to liberal philosophies. One area that illustrates this process is the rise and fall of institutionalization. During the 18th and 19th Centuries, American families with PWDD were encouraged to relinquish the identified family member to state-run institutions, as early as diagnoses were made, in order to reduce burdens on the family and society. The charity model as understood in Judeo-Christian tradition in which sacrifice was emphasized and Greco-Roman tradition which advocated for more intelligent men to rule over others for the greater good of all will be explored. Industrialization, World War II (WWII) and the American Civil Rights Movement of the 20th Century all prompted new policies toward care for PWDD. Since the Civil Rights Movement, census numbers at state-run institutions for PWDD have been declining regularly. This movement finds validation in the liberalism of modern American philosophers. Poland has followed a similar path in a general, yet truncated way. As a Soviet satellite following WWII, Poland was compelled to adopt Soviet Union traditions toward PWDD. After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989, Poland established policies enshrined in American and European law, such as person-centered care for PWDD. Both countries have dedicated national funds for supporting PWDD, such as America’s Medicaid and Poland’s National Disability Fund. As Poland and the United States continue to integrate services into more inclusive societies, national healthcare initiatives remain viable based on comparative studies. Quality of life indicators are offered in support of this deinstitutionalized, person-centered model.

The United States and Saudi Arabia in the light of ‘Abd ar-Raḥman Munīf’s City of Salt and Dave Eggers’ Hologram for King – a question about the costs of economic progress

The article analyzes two literary works: At-Tīh (The Lost), the first part of the five-volume Mudun al-milḥ (Cities of Salt, 1984–1989) series by Saudi writer ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān Munīf, and the novel A Hologram for the King (2012) by American writer Dave Eggers. The plot of both novels is set in Saudi Arabia. Both works are interesting studies of the mechanisms behind economic expansion and the impact of technological progress on the societies of the particular regions. However, both novels are characterized by a different historical and cultural perspective. Saudi Arabia illustrated in Minīf’s novel at the beginning of the oil age appears to be a completely different political and economic formation than the modern wealthy Saudi Kingdom illustrated in Eggers’ novel. The position of American capital and industry in the world economy in the first half of the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st century is also different. The geopolitical situation has also changed over the past decades: a new major player – China – has emerged among the economic powers. Despite these differences the analysis of both novels shows that the mechanisms ruling economic expansion remain unchanged and its costs to societies and individuals are difficult to assess. Both works also raise questions about the extent of modernization processes and cultural transformation, as well as the persistence of values, behavior patterns and thought patterns, which reveal their presence especially where the confrontation between the Eastern and Western World takes place.

Turkey forever balances between East and West

When looking at contemporary Turkish politics, an incorrect notion is often circulated that Turkey has only in recent years, as far back as under Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, begun a policy of balancing between East and West. The purpose of this article is to analyze Turkey’s posture – in terms of balancing between spheres of influence – after the end of World War II until Turkey joined NATO and then compare it with Turkey’s stance during the Justice and Development Party government in the context of relations with the United States and Russia. This will help answer the question: to what extent is Ankara’s current balkanizing attitude something surprising? Aren’t specific patterns of the 1945–1952 period similar to those of the 21st century, and the differences are the attitudes of Washington and Moscow rather than Ankara?

Policy for introducing best management practices in healthcare entities around the world. A case study of Virginia Mason Hospital in the United States

The subject of the article is the best management practices (j. polski: NPZ) implemented in medical entities around the world. The implementation of NPZ was presented on the example of Virginia Mason Hospital in Washington State in the United States. The aim of the article is to show the advantages and benefits resulting from the implementation of NPZ in medical entities. During the considerations, answers were sought to the research questions: 1) how can NPZ be used in medical entities?; 2) how can the practice and experience of Virginia Mason Hospital be used in implementing NPZ in other healthcare entities? The article uses the system analysis method to study the United States health system and the NPZ implementation system at Virginia Mason Hospital, which required the use of a qualitative method. The comparative method was used to study differences in the implementation of NPZ. The research results were presented using a descriptive method.

The signing of the security agreement between the Solomon Islands and the People’s Republic of China has raised concerns among some countries in the Indo-Pacific region, including Australia, India, Japan, and the United States, which form the Quad group. This article aims to examine the reaction of the format countries to the Honiara-Beijing agreement. The paper contains an analysis of the reasons for the rapprochement between the Solomon Islands and China, presents the reasons for the expansion of the PRC in the security dimension to the Pacific Island countries, and examines the Quad’s reaction to Beijing’s actions in the region.