Russia — Turkey — Greece: Dialogue opportunities in the Balkans最新文献

{"title":"Russians, Bulgarians, and Turks in the crucible of the RussianTurkish war of 1877–1878","authors":"M. Frolova","doi":"10.31168/4469-2030-3.04","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31168/4469-2030-3.04","url":null,"abstract":"Study of published memoirs of Russian officers, participants in the RussianTurkish war of 1877–1878, and official documents makes it clear that the relationship between Russians and Bulgarians during the war was not unambiguously positive, as was described in Marxist historiography. This work presents some observations and scenes from the complex palette of relationships between Russians, Bulgarians, and Turks.","PeriodicalId":102438,"journal":{"name":"Russia — Turkey — Greece: Dialogue opportunities in the Balkans","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125372511","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Greek-Turkish disagreement over the delimitation of the Aegean Sea","authors":"Ilgar M. Mamedov","doi":"10.31168/4469-2030-3.11","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31168/4469-2030-3.11","url":null,"abstract":"Greek-Turkish disagreement over the Aegean Sea is caused by different approaches to the delimitation of the Aegean Sea shelf. Greece believes that each of the Greek Islands in the Aegean Sea has its own territorial waters and continental shelf, which Greece can expand into. Turkey believes that the Aegean Sea is a special semiclosed sea, the delimitation of which should be based on the principle of equality, and that the Greek Islands are not separate territories with territorial waters. The parties are negotiating, which, however, has not led to a settlement of the problem. These differences have economic and military dimensions, as well as a geopolitical context.","PeriodicalId":102438,"journal":{"name":"Russia — Turkey — Greece: Dialogue opportunities in the Balkans","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121422136","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Problems and prospects of development of cooperation in the Balkans: Russia’s role","authors":"Noela Mahmutaj","doi":"10.31168/4469-2030-3.14","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31168/4469-2030-3.14","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter examines the relations between Russia and the countries of the Balkan Peninsula at the beginning of the 21st century. The Balkan region is in the circles of interest of USA, EU and Russia, and in recent years the political activities of the parties have shown themselves more actively in relation to the Balkan countries. This is due not only to the accession of new countries into the EU or to the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), but also because of the growing influence of Russia in the Balkans. Thus, we pay attention to the analysis of the Russian influence in the Balkan region and argue that it is not defined as a “new” issue, since Russia is not a fan of EU or NATO enlargement. However, the relationships between these parties depends on international factors influenced by contemporary political realities. In this context, we analyse the current state of cooperation, including problems and prospects, and define Russia’s role in this region.","PeriodicalId":102438,"journal":{"name":"Russia — Turkey — Greece: Dialogue opportunities in the Balkans","volume":"58 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124856348","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A comparative analysis of the policies of Turkey, the Russian Federation, and Greece towards the Kosovo issue (1999–2008)","authors":"Kader Özlem","doi":"10.31168/4469-2030-3.08","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31168/4469-2030-3.08","url":null,"abstract":"The developments in Kosovo that occurred after the death of Josip Broz Tito were one of the key factors in the disintegration of Yugoslavia. Albanians in Kosovo, after the change of its status, started a peaceful resistance under the leadership of Ibrahim Rugova. However, the focus of the international community on the Bosnian War in the first half of the 1990s caused the Kosovo issue to decline in importance. As a result, Kosovo was not mentioned in the Dayton Accords, which caused Albanians to change their methods, and they subsequently militarized under the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA/UÇK). Clashes between the Yugoslavian Army, Serbian soldiers, and KLA in 1998 and 1999 concluded with NATO’s intervention on March 24, 1999. While the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) took the lead in the region, Albanians in Kosovo started to establish their own institutions after 1999. The failure of international negotiations over Kosovo’s status led Kosovo to declare her independence unilaterally with the support of the United States on 17th February, 2008. Turkey, as a member of NATO, joined the intervention in 1999 and supported the Kosovan independence process in the 2000s, while the Russian Federation (RF) opposed the unilateral independence declaration because the negotiations on Kosovo’s status did not conclude with a deal between both sides. In spite of Greece’s being a member of NATO, Athens only reluctantly supported the intervention in 1999 and Greek public opinion was firmly against that decision. Greece has been a traditional ally of Serbia in the Balkans, leading to a difficult situation for Greece. The result of this can be seen in the decision of Greece to not recognise Kosovo. This work compares the policies of Turkey, RF, and Greece on the Kosovo issue between the years of 1999 and 2008 and attempts to explore the primary motivations of these actors’ policies regarding Kosovo’s independence.","PeriodicalId":102438,"journal":{"name":"Russia — Turkey — Greece: Dialogue opportunities in the Balkans","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121100039","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Khilandar Monastery on Mount Athos and Russian Diplomacy: on the History of Russian-Serbian Relations (1850–1870s)","authors":"Irina Smirnova","doi":"10.31168/4469-2030-3.05","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31168/4469-2030-3.05","url":null,"abstract":"New materials from the Foreign Policy Archive of Imperial Russia and other Russian archives relating to the history of the Serbian spiritual presence on the Holy Mountain show the development of Russian-Serbian interchurch relations from 1850 to the 1870s. At this time, Athos became involved in the sphere of geopolitical interests of European powers that used the ethno-confessional factor as an instrument of political influence in the Middle East and the Balkans. One of the key tasks of Russian diplomacy, in order to strengthen Russian influence in the Orthodox East, was to provide material assistance to the Athonite monasteries, among which an important place belonged to the Serbian monastery of Khilandar. Study of the correspondence of Russian secular and ecclesiastical diplomats (Envoy to the Port N. Ignatiev and Consuls in Thessaloniki A. Lagovsky and A. Muravyov) and representatives of the highest spiritual authorities of Serbia and Russia (Metropolitan Mikhail of Serbia, Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, and ober-Prosecutors of the Holy Synod) allows us to trace the decision-making process in Russian departments (the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Holy Synod) regarding the financial support of the Khilandar monastery, which was negatively affected by the problems associated with the new political structure of the Transdanubian principalities and the anti-church policy of Alexander Kuza towards the monastic farmsteads of the Eastern Patriarchates. The key points of the correspondence relate to the issues of providing material assistance to Khilandar and diplomatic support from the MFA in resolving a ten-year dispute between Khilandar and Zograf monasteries over the land plots of two Slavic monasteries on Mount Athos, which was considered in a Turkish court and attracted the close attention of European diplomats. Special efforts by Russian diplomats were aimed at reconciling the Serbs and Bulgarians and overcoming the Greco-Russian crisis on Athos, which reached its apogee in the mid-1870s. The development of ethno-national (Russian-Serbian, Greek-Russian, and Bulgarian-Greek) relations is considered in the context of the Eastern Question in the third quarter of the 19th century.","PeriodicalId":102438,"journal":{"name":"Russia — Turkey — Greece: Dialogue opportunities in the Balkans","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127590922","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Friend forever — unfriend forever: Russia and Turkey as seen by modern Greeks","authors":"Ann Lubotskaya","doi":"10.31168/4469-2030-3.10","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31168/4469-2030-3.10","url":null,"abstract":"Greece today is unique among EU countries. Entirely European, it preserves simultaneously some characteristic Balkan features, including its traditions, Orthodox Christianity, and a special, historically determined approach to Russia and Turkey. Stereotypical images of these countries in Greece are based on the long relationship history between the three nations, and little can be done to change them, even today: neither attempts to conduct warm neighbourly dialogue between Greece and Turkey nor the neutral position of the Greek government towards Russia have had any effect. This is confirmed by the results of numerous opinion polls. Nowadays, the majority of Greeks still believe that Russia is a friend and helpmate, while Turkey is a dangerous neighbour that Greece can be at peace with, but never fully trust.","PeriodicalId":102438,"journal":{"name":"Russia — Turkey — Greece: Dialogue opportunities in the Balkans","volume":"57 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133313511","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Political relations between the USSR, Greece, and Turkey on the Cyprus issue from 1950 to the 1970s","authors":"T. Nikitina","doi":"10.31168/4469-2030-3.07","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31168/4469-2030-3.07","url":null,"abstract":"The Cyprus question was an important issue for the international community from 1950 to the 1970s, and one on which the USSR, Greece, and Turkey held opposing views. The population of Cyprus, which, since 1925, had been an important British outpost in the Mediterranean, was struggling against the colonial regime for independence. The USSR supported demands for the creation of an independent state. The Greek government would rather have united Cyprus with Greece. Turkey was strongly opposed to both ideas and would at most agree to split the island with Greece. The British government regarded the Cyprus issue as an internal matter, while the USA had pressed on many occasions to be allowed to establish military bases on the island. It is important to examine the UN resolutions on the matter and the changing positions of the countries involved after the formation of the Republic of Cyprus. This study is based on materials from the Foreign Policy archive of the Russian Federation.","PeriodicalId":102438,"journal":{"name":"Russia — Turkey — Greece: Dialogue opportunities in the Balkans","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121979985","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Mathematical tools for measuring the level of multilingualism of the population in the Russian Federation, the Turkish Republic, the Hellenic Republic, and the Republic of Cyprus","authors":"A. Airapetian","doi":"10.31168/4469-2030-3.16","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31168/4469-2030-3.16","url":null,"abstract":"Language policy in multinational societies and states should take into account the emerging language situation in a particular country and region. To study such situations and determine the direction of language policy, scientific approaches are needed. In societies characterized by the spread of polylingualism, mathematical methods can be applied to measure the level of multilingualism of the population. As one of the tools for describing the language situation and determining the level of polylingualism of the population, it is proposed that the concept of the language integration index (LII) be introduced into scientific circulation. The calculation of this index along with the parallel determination of the polylingualism coefficient (the share of the population speaking more than one language) and the allocation of the share of the population’s proficiency in major languages allows the measurement and recording of trends in the linguistic life of states using data from population censuses, sociological studies, and other sources. One of the factors affecting the level of polylingualism of a population is the degree of participation of states in cooperation, integration, and globalization processes. In the linguistic dimension, the named economic processes do not necessarily lead to the complete dominance of any one language. It is possible that there is an alternative to this scenario, which is expressed in an increase in the number of people who speak more than one language. The correctness of this assumption can give the processes of integration and globalization in the linguistic respect a completely different quality — linguistic variability. Based on the Soviet and Russian Population Censuses (1970, 1979, 1989, 2002, and 2010), Microcensus 2015, Eurostat data (2007, 2011, and 2016), and the results of Eurobarometer sociological research (2000, 2005, and 2012), we assess the impact of integration and globalization processes on the level of polylingualism of the populations of Russia, Turkey, Greece, and Cyprus.","PeriodicalId":102438,"journal":{"name":"Russia — Turkey — Greece: Dialogue opportunities in the Balkans","volume":"59 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126143924","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Turkey’s policy in the Balkans and Turkish approaches to interaction with Russia and Greece","authors":"I. Svistunova","doi":"10.31168/4469-2030-3.09","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31168/4469-2030-3.09","url":null,"abstract":"The Balkans region is one of the priorities of Turkish foreign policy. Under the Justice and Development Party (AKP), Turkish policy towards the Balkans has gained new impetus in a wide range of directions. The Balkans strategy of Ankara is based on three complementary concepts: European integration and affiliation with the West, development of relations with regional states on the basis of pragmatic interests, and the cultural and historical presence of Turkey in the Balkans. Ankara’s approaches to its historical neighbour-adversaries Russia and Greece are based on a complicated combination of pragmatic political and economic concerns as well as cultural and historical patterns. Despite all the divergences on a number of issues, Russian-Turkish relations are going through the period of an unprecedented rapprochement. There are a lot of difficult problems in Greco-Turkish relations, but the two countries nevertheless try to find opportunities for dialogue. This all underlines the importance and the use of studying and analysing Turkish approaches to the Balkan policies of Russia and Greece.","PeriodicalId":102438,"journal":{"name":"Russia — Turkey — Greece: Dialogue opportunities in the Balkans","volume":"350 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116390596","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Turkish factor in Greek-Russian relations in the 2010s","authors":"A. Aleksandrova","doi":"10.31168/4469-2030-3.13","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31168/4469-2030-3.13","url":null,"abstract":"The second decade of the 21st century was a difficult time for both Russia, Greece, and Turkey. Greece was plagued by a deep financial and economic crisis, Russia faced a series of external political challenges, including sanctions imposed by the US and EU, and Turkey’s relations with the West also grew tense. This chapter examines the economic dimension of Greek-Russian relations in the 2010s, focusing specifically on the influence of the “Turkish factor”, which, in many aspects — from international military cooperation to tourism — is impossible to ignore. The influence of Turkey can hardly be described unequivocally as either positive or negative: Russo-Turkish and Greek-Turkish issues have indirectly fostered Greek-Russian cooperation in some areas, while hindering its development in others.","PeriodicalId":102438,"journal":{"name":"Russia — Turkey — Greece: Dialogue opportunities in the Balkans","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117045096","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}