К вопросу о причинах провала «цветных революций» (на примере «васильковой революции» в Беларуси)

Yulia Nikitinа *IntroductionThe "color revolutions" in the post-Soviet space were initially understood to mean the Rose Revolution in Georgia (2003), the Orange Revolution in Ukraine (2004) and Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan (2005). The one feature these

This article reflects the main findings of the ‘White Paper on opportunities and challenges in view of enhancing the EU cooperation with Eastern Europe, Central Asia and South Caucasus in Science, Research and Innovation’, which was released in April 2012, from a science and technology (S&T) internationalisation policy perspective. In the ‘Internationalisation of R&D from an S&T policy perspective’ section of this article, the ongoing discourse on internationalisation of research and development (R&D) is discussed from an S&T policy perspective. In the ‘S&T cooperation between the EU and Eastern Europe as well as Central Asia since the early 1990s’ section, the development of S&T cooperation between the EU and EECA is described as a historical snapshot since the early 1990s. In the ‘Recent S&T internationalisation efforts of Eastern European and Central Asian countries’ section, special emphasis is given to the current EECA countries' dispositions towards R&D internationalisation. For a structured overview, the EECA region is disaggregated in three subregions, namely, (a) Russian Federation, (b) Eastern European countries (without Russia) and (c) Central Asian countries. To better position the R&D internationalisation policies of the region under scrutiny within the overall state-of-the-art of S&T, the ‘Current state of S&T in the Eastern European and Central Asian countries’ section compares main S&T indicators of the EECA countries. The ‘The White Paper recommendations in the light of international S&T cooperation policy objectives’ section finally condenses the major recommendations elaborated during the White Paper consultation process and puts them into the context of international S&T cooperation policy. The question is raised on what international cooperation can contribute to improving S&T in the EECA region and which approaches are deemed most adequate to support this. The analysis shows that most recommendations suggested in the White Paper directly target the S&T policy (delivery) system, which is put into an explicit actor's role. Science diplomacy is the identified predominant driver for deepening international R&D cooperation with the EECA region. The main instruments used are international dialogue, exchange and learning platforms, which are supported by the European Commission according to the EU's subsidiarity principle. Other S&T internationalisation policy objectives play a role too, especially if a more regionally differentiated perspective is taken into account.

1. Introduction Taras Kuzio 2. Ethnic Tensions and State Strategies: Understanding the Survival of the Ukrainian State Paul D'Anieri 3. Oligarchs, Tapes and Oranges: 'Kuchmagate' to the Orange Revolution Taras Kuzio 4. State Institutions, Political Context and Parliamentary Election Legislation in Ukraine, 2000-2006 Erik S. Herron 5. Revolutionary Bargain: The Unmaking of Ukraine's Autocracy through Pacting Serhiy Kudelia 6. Patriotism, Order and Articulations of the Nation in Kyiv High Schools: Before and After the Orange Revolution Anna Fournier 7. Rock, Pop and Politics in Ukraine's 2004 Presidential Campaign and Orange Revolution Bohdan Klid 8. Anti-Orange Discourses in Ukraine's Internet: Before the Orange Split Olga Filippova 9. Gender and the Orange Revolution Alexandra Hrycak

At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, the South Caucasus and Central Asia became a "labyrinth" of world politics, where the interests of the great powers seeking to fill the region with their influence inevitably clashed. This policy continued at the borders of the 20th and 21st centuries. The USSR as a world power, whose global leadership began to erode in the 1980s, disintegrated by the end of the century. The new Russia, in search of its lost equilibrium, unleashed bloody wars in the former geopolitical space in order to maintain its influence. The South Caucasus, with its unique geopolitical position, is a kind of micro-model of the world, where borders and bridges in all these spheres are intertwined in a complex historical and geopolitical knot. In this context, the region is of particular importance as a point of contact between the international interests of Western and Eastern countries. The rapid transformation of the South Caucasus countries from objects to subjects of international relations was the military and political collapse of Russia. The geopolitical turmoil that followed the collapse of the socialist system was in the hands of all the leading geopolitical players in international relations. The new Russia also took advantage of the chaos, hoping to hold on to the post-Soviet countries. To this end, Russia instigated all the conflicts that are still unresolved today. Initially, the US and the West in general did not oppose Russia much in its geopolitical game, there were times when Moscow acted with their tacit consent and sometimes in a veiled form, even in tandem with them. This policy led to the occupation of the Georgian regions of Abkhazia and North Kartli (so-called South Ossetia), where about half a million people became refugees in their own country. The post-World War II world order was shattered, and the powers that created the UN Charter were in no hurry to be guided by it, since they themselves were involved in one way or another. Georgia and the South Caucasus as a whole is a region at the epicentre of the dominant geopolitical currents. The main geopolitical powers - the US and Russia - are fighting over the South Caucasus in order to acquire their geopolitical and geo-economic space, with Caspian oil and gas at the forefront of their policies. The geopolitical position of Georgia and Kazakhstan, of the Central Asian states in general, and their influence on the current geopolitical confrontation prove that our countries have objective parameters that allow them to occupy a special place in the system of global prostate power relations. However, their effectiveness can and should be increased if the necessary structural, organisational and substantive measures are taken. The relevance of Kazakhstan and the region as a whole is determined, first of all, by the growing importance of Central Asia in modern international relations as a point of intersection of the interests of the world's largest players - Russia and the United States. Central Asia is not just a key region on the world map, the control of which will allow major emerging economies (especially China) to manage the global transit of hydrocarbons and other strategic raw materials, and thus influence their economic growth, aggregate power and areas of expansion. Central Asia is a crossroads of civilisations, the control of which, it has been believed for centuries, allows one to dominate the world. The region retains this exceptional geopolitical importance today. Thus, a comprehensive analysis of the place and role of the geopolitical interests of the Central Asian and South Caucasian states in the modern political process has shown that their priority is to ensure national and state security, political stability and fair international relations, while preserving the aspirations of individual countries to control territories and resources of strategic importance.


 Popular writing has brought about an image of Hindu deities that are seen as a part of Hinduism only and Hinduism is also seen as a religion of the Indian subcontinent. While this may be largely true in many cases, it forces us to look at Hinduism in very Semitic terms as a closed religion. On the contrary we see that there was a considerable travel of gods and goddesses from other religions into Hinduism and vice versa. And thus negates the idea of Hinduism as a closed system. This therefore brings us to the problem of defining Hinduism which is by no means an easy task as there is no agreement on any singular definition. Pre-modern India had more contacts with her neighbours and thus central Asia and south East Asia emerge as some of the main regions where Indian influence is seen in many aspects of life. Even to a casual observer of both central Asia and South East Asia we see that there striking Indian influences in culture, religion and other aspects of life. All of them are not part of the textual literature that has become very nationalistic in the recent past and this tends to also dismiss the earlier writings as western Eurocentric. It is true that there is a great element of eurocentricism in the earlier writings but one point that needs to be highlighted is that these earlier writings also faithfully portrayed many aspects like iconography etc. in a very descriptive manner that focused on the measurements, likeness, colour and other associated characteristics of the statues. Such trends are clearly visible in the writings of Jas Burgess,E.B Havell etc. who were influenced by the dominant paradigm in contemporary Europe of the 1850‟s where the duty of the historian was to just record. Such an approach was informed by the writings of the German philosopher Leopold Von Ranke. Though there are certain value judgments at the end of the chapter, the main narrative is a dry as dust and it is easy to decipher the characteristics or reconstruct the iconographic programme in any shrine and by extension the religious practices. In the modern period , where the dominant forms of anti-colonial struggles led to a writing of nationalist history succeeded by Marxist influenced social histories in many parts of Asia, the identification of the national boundaries and national cultures also extended to religions and many aspects were either muted or totally obliterated in history writing to present a homogenous picture. Thus, we have a picture of Hinduism and Buddhism that fits in with the national narratives. Such a collapse of categories is there in the borderland of India where the cultural boundaries are not clearly marked as also h religious boundaries. One single example that illustrates this assertion is the portrayal of Sri Lanka as a Sinhala Buddhist region with the Tamil regions of Sri Lanka marked off as separate entity and both being largely exclusive. In the Buddhist temples of Sri Lanka, one finds firstly the statue of Ganesha and later the images of Karthikeya and also the god Shani or Saturn. This image of a Buddhist monastery sharply contrasts with the highly buddhistic space of a Sinhala Buddhist temple where non-Buddhist elements are not found.

過去在蘇聯時期，拉丁美洲地區曾被蘇聯視作與美國進行競爭的主要地區。蘇聯在拉丁美洲地區有過積極的滲透與輸出革命理念，希望扶植建立親蘇政權以增進對美戰略平衡。蘇聯解體後，俄羅斯新政府的外交路線採取親西態度，由於俄羅斯國內對於經濟的重建和修復，極度需要西方國家的援助，因此對外政策考量依然集中在對國內經濟的改革和國外資金的援助來做發展。因此對拉丁美洲政策一度在俄羅斯對外政策中被邊緣化。至俄羅斯第二任總統普京(Владимир Владимирович Путин)上台後，在對外政策方面進行全方位之外交路線，與世界各國發展的外交關係，強調俄羅斯現行外交非意識型態的對抗，發展多極世界的外交構想，開始逐步擴大俄羅斯的影響力。也自此開始，俄羅斯開始重視對於拉丁美洲的外交關係。俄羅斯政府高層多次出訪拉丁美洲，與拉丁美洲多國擴大了政治、軍事及經貿方面之合作。相較以往俄羅斯對拉丁美洲互動零散的狀況，俄羅斯已經開始慢慢增強了在美洲的影響力。 在俄羅斯總統普京第二任期間俄羅斯面對多項問題，如東歐中亞發生的顏色革命及北約歐盟的雙東擴，俄羅斯的安全空間被壓縮，另因反恐戰爭的關係使俄美關係陷入矛盾。在拉美國家方面，俄羅斯注意到其逐漸成熟的且穩定的外交發展與國際地位，誘發俄羅斯對拉丁美洲的互動逐漸提高，不論在經濟、軍事或能源合作等方面，都有積極的作為。另一方面，拉丁美洲地區的反美浪潮升高，左派政府的上台，引起俄羅斯對拉美政策中的制美特點，這也使俄羅斯在加強與拉丁美洲國家的外交關係上特別值得研究。多數拉美國家如委內瑞拉、古巴和墨西哥對於俄羅斯重返拉丁美洲皆表示歡迎，此一現象傳達的訊息及利益釋出，對俄羅斯而言是戰略利益，或是經濟利益，皆有多層面的相互關係。綜述以上幾點，令人不禁猜想俄羅斯對拉丁美洲的戰略目標與對拉美政策構想其目標為何，並其所牽動的國際關係是否影響現今之世界體系。

For a country of such modest size, Georgia has recently been at the center of considerable international attention. One major reason for this is the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline, a project initiated in the 1990s during the presidency of Eduard Shevardnadze. This pipeline is essentially complete and will soon transport a million barrels of oil per day to the West without going through Russia, Iran, or the Bosporus Straits. It is so important for the region that analysts assert that it reconfigures the mental map with which political observers and decision-makers look at the world.1Equally important for the future of Georgia, however, is the Rose Revolution of 2003 and the events that have unfolded in its wake. The revolution was an important step in creating one of the most important laboratories for democracy in the world today, and it provides a context in which political, cultural, and economic issues have played out over the past year and a half.The effects of the BTC pipeline and Rose Revolution have been interpreted in different ways, and part of this article is devoted to presenting the different perspectives involved. In particular, American and Russian views often stand in sharp contrast to each other, providing a continuing source of friction between the two countries. The upshot for Georgia is that it will continue to receive considerable international attention for the foreseeable future.As many events in the former Soviet Union have shown, predicting the future in a place such as Georgia is a high-risk venture; therefore, I shall not attempt to do so in this article. It is possible, however, to identify some core issues around which the future will be worked out. These issues will be my focus. The three issues I discuss are: (1) economic development, (2) territory, and (3) the development of a strong, well-functioning state. The first case concerns the economic viability of the country, the second involves the extent and organization of Georgia's territory, and the third deals with whether the country can develop the norms required of a modern state.These three issues are interrelated, but they tend to show up in different discussions conducted by different policy and academic communities. One thing they have in common, however, is that they are playing out against the backdrop of the Rose Revolution, so I shall begin with a brief review of this event.The Rose Revolution as BackdropThe Rose Revolution was an extraordinary event that put Georgia on the international stage for several days in November 2003. It brought Mikheil Saakashvili, a young populist critic of Shevardnadze's corrupt government, to power and initiated the region's most important experiment in democracy. The ramifications of this revolution extend well beyond Georgia's borders. It has made democratic movements thinkable in places such as Ukraine, a country where Georgian flags sprouted in the rallies of the Orange Revolution last winter. It is also brought up in discussions about potential democratic transitions in other places, including Russia.A few basic forces at work prior to the Rose Revolution provide insight into why it took place. The first was the civil society that was struggling to emerge at the time. Numerous nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) had been active in Georgia for years, and they clearly had an impact on government and society by the time of the parliamentary elections of November 2, 2003. Some of these NGOs had actively defended the rights of religious and ethnic groups, which helped create a new kind of public discourse. Opinion differs as to just how important NGOs were in the revolution, but observers generally agree that they at least played a role in laying the groundwork for the event. This view is supported by the fact that after the Rose Revolution, leaders of countries such as Uzbekistan, Russia, and Kazakhstan, where such upheaval is viewed with trepidation, have restricted or simply closed down several NGOs. …

In April 2010, Kyrgyzstan experienced another "revolution," the latest of the postcommunist "color revolutions." The authoritarian regime fell and transitional leaders began a new democratic transition. The 2010 events illustrate the importance of agency and strategic learning in causing authoritarian collapse and initiating democratization. Prodemocratic activists and party leaders, who had learned from both the successes and failures of the 2005 "Tulip Revolution," mobilized popular discontent to topple President Bakiev's regime. They ushered in a democratic constitution and widespread liberalization and held Kyrgyzstan's freest-ever elections. However, political violence, especially politically motivated ethnic conflict, corruption, and calls for superpresidentialism threaten democratic deepening.

The Organization of Turkic States (OTS) has emerged as a significant regional actor, shaping geopolitical and economic dynamics in Eurasia. As the organization expands its scope, international security considerations have become a critical determinant in its activities. This study examines how external security threats, including geopolitical tensions in the South Caucasus, Russia’s assertive influence over post-Soviet Turkic republics, and China’s strategic expansion in Central Asia, impact the security priorities of the OTS. Using a qualitative research methodology that incorporates case study analysis, content analysis, and comparative approaches, this research evaluates the organization's responses to these challenges. Key findings indicate that the OTS has shifted from a primarily cultural and economic cooperation platform to a securityoriented regional organization, prioritizing military collaboration, economic security, and cybersecurity. The Shusha Declaration, joint military exercises, and counterterrorism initiatives demonstrate the OTS’s proactive approach to security threats. Furthermore, cybersecurity cooperation and the transition to a common Turkic alphabet illustrate the organization’s strategic efforts to counter hybrid warfare and information security risks. The study concludes that the OTS’s evolving security framework is essential for maintaining regional stability, enhancing strategic autonomy, and reducing external dependencies. Future trends suggest that the OTS will continue to strengthen its security mechanisms, balancing geopolitical competition while fostering deeper regional integration.

The research paper explores the impact of Russia’s war in Ukraine on post-Soviet space. Since 2014 the Russian aggression on Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity is considered as an act of obvious violation of international law as well as an attempt to change the current world order established after the Soviet Union collapse when former Soviet republics gained full independence. But the new situation emerged by Russia's invasion of Ukraine threatens not only the existence of Ukraine as an independent state but it also creates similar threats to other post-Soviet republics that are located in Russia’s so called “near abroad”.The paper explores Russia's geopolitical interests in post-Soviet era and space towards the former Soviet republics. It emphasizes the peculiarities and impact of Russia’s war in Ukraine on ongoing processes in Eastern Europe, South Caucasus, and Central Asia. The concept of “Russian world” and its geopolitical provisions are also observed and analyzed. It is argued that this concept has no more potential to be advanced with the use of "soft power" tools. The paper also forecasts a strategic retreat for Russia in post-Soviet space as a probable consequence of the Ukrainian war because of losing by Russia the global information warfare and the lack of international support. It is concluded that Russia's aggression has a real potential to be copied and reproduced by other authoritarian leaders which will aggravate the situation in other post-Soviet conflict zones. At the same time, this war is also considered a struggle between democracy and autocratic rule expansion when the latter has less chance to succeed.

: The importance of the South Caucasus to European security is growing. Recent trips by Lord Robertson to the region underscore NATO resolve to expand security under the Partnership for Peace (PFP) program. Moreover the three South Caucasus states Armenia Azerbaijan and Georgia are moving toward a closer relationship with the Alliance. These developments bode well for future regional stability. Far Countries Strategically located on the southeastern NATO flank the South Caucasus borders Iran Russia and Turkey. Some observers believe that among post-Soviet regions the South Caucasus is second only to the Baltic states in strategic importance to the Alliance because its territory is contiguous with member nation Turkey and is a natural extension of Europe. It also forms a strategic corridor linking Southern Europe with Central Asia that could be used as a conduit for Caspian energy resources which will likely play a significant role in European energy security and the global energy market if regional instability is overcome.

Despite the high expectations associated with the 2003 Rose Revolution in Georgia and the 2004 Orange Revolution in Ukraine, the persistence of the two democratic regimes remains far from certain. It is hypothesized in this article that U.S.-funded democracy assistance programs implemented in Georgia and Ukraine in the post-revolution period have been burdened by U.S. security interests in the region and partly accounted for disappointing outcomes of the color revolutions. To test the hypothesis, four types of democracy assistance programs – electoral aid, political party development, NGO development and independent media strengthening – are analyzed in a comparative manner. The findings confirm the retarding impact of some U.S.-funded programs but they reveal reasons other than U.S. security interests.

In general, the most favorable position in the Caucasus in terms of territory belongs to the South Caucasus. It is necessary not only to analyze but also to generalize the geoeconomic realities of the South Caucasus region, which increase its importance and affect the system of international economic relations. First of all, it should be noted that the location of water bodies such as the Caspian and Black Seas, surrounded by countries such as Russia, Iran, and Turkey, has turned the South Caucasus region into an East-West and North-South corridor. These factors show that the Caucasus, especially the South Caucasus, occupies an important position in the geo-economic region of the world. In recent years, it is clear that international organizations and the world’s economic powers attach great importance to the region. It is no coincidence that the South Caucasus and Central Asia have led to sustainable development and security from the Mediterranean to China, as well as sustainable development and the export of Caspian oil and gas with the participation of world-renowned companies to the European market.

Two U.S. geographers review an array of intertwining political geographic issues that provide context and set the stage for deadly armed conflict between groups of ethnic Uzbeks and Kyrgyz in the southern Kyrgyzstan city of Osh in June 2010. Applying a disaggregated and localized approach to understanding the ambiguous and complex factors underlying the current instability in Kyrgyzstan, they focus on: the role of north-south political competition; the country's uneasy economic relationship with its western neighbor, Uzbekistan; widespread official corruption and the penetration of organized crime into government structures; as well as broader geopolitical issues. The latter include Tashkent's policy toward the Uzbek diaspora, perceived threats from international terrorism/Islamist fundamentalism, the potential for the export of a "color revolution" to Uzbekistan, the presence of U.S. and Russian military forces in Central Asia, and the relative ineffectiveness of regional security structures such as the Collective Security Treaty Organization.

The Power of Putin in Russian Foreign Policy