Obsahuje bibliografické odkazy., Ostatní autoři viz poznámky pod čarou., and Cechia. Cong hoa Séc. Cseh Köztársaság. Csehország. Czech Republic. Czechy. Česká republika. Česká socialistická republika. České země. Česko. ČR. ČSR. Chequia. République tcheque. Tjeckien. Tschechien. Tschechische Republik. Tšekin tasavalta. Tšekki. Země české.
Kniha podle recenzenta náleží k inspirativnímu proudu angloamerické historiografie orientovanému na bádání o ruských revolucích a počátcích sovětského režimu. Autor v ní zkoumá sociální strategie, s nimiž se příslušníci vrstev šlechty, statkářů a důstojníků, souhrnně označovaných jako carské elity, vyrovnávali s prudkými změnami politických a společenských poměrů v ruských revolucích roku 1917., This work, according to the reviewer, is in the inspiring current of Anglo-American historiography of the Russian revolutions and the beginnings of the Soviet régime. In this publication the author considers the social strategies employed by members of the aristocracy, landowning classes, and the military – which he groups together under the label ‘Tsarist élite’ – to deal with the precipitous political and social changes brought about by the Russian revolutions of 1917., and [autor recenze] Dalibor Vácha.
Two brothers, František (1891-1956) and Alois (1897-1992) came from the family of a small farmer in the village of Senetářov in the Drahany Highlands. The older František was in the second year of his military service when the First World War broke out, the younger Alois was conscripted. Gradually they were both taken captive, and later got into the legions, with which they went along the whole Siberian railway. They met in Siberia as late as on Christmas Eve 1919. They were demobilized at the turn of the year 1920-1921. Several letters by František addressed to his chosen one and later wife have been preserved; the younger Alois wrote fresh memoirs immediately after his return describing not only war events, the situation in Russia where Soviets were assuming power, but also the relationships among legionnaires. These are unique sources offering authentic personal testimonies of WW1 participants.
On September 16, 2015 theOriental Institute of the CAS organized an international conference, which addressed the question of the meanings of democracy in the Middle East, Asia, and Russia and the role that democracy plays in the discourse of the political elites and non-state actors in these regions. The case studies at the conference described the situation in Egypt, Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, China and Russia. Democracy plays a crucial role in the efforts of the Western world to promote peace and stability and maintain international security. However, in recent years, countries such as China and Russia have explicitly offered an alternative interpretation of democracy to the public, both domestically and internationally, one which builds on national, cultural and political traditions and contradicts the claims for universality common in theWest. Furthermore, non-universalistic discourses on democracy have become popular among diverse non-state actors, such as Islamicmovements, non-formal authorities, or civil society across the Middle East and Central Asia. These developments have important implications for both the efforts aimed at the promotion of democracy and for the advance of democracy in general. and Věra Exnerová.
This article analyses the ascent of ‘Russian hybrid warfare’ (RHW) as a notion that transformed the understanding of national security in the Czech Republic in the short period of 2014–2016. It argues that the emergence of RHW as a specifically understood prime security threat was the result of contingent and often unruly social interactions across different settings, rather than a linear and centralised response to Russia’s actions. To capture this process, the concept of ‘assemblage’ is introduced and then defined as a temporary constellation of a variety of different actors, both public and private. Building on research interviews and documents produced in the RHW field, the authors then proceed in three steps. First, they chronologically trace the gradual emergence of the Czech RHW assemblage from a variety of different actors—bureaucrats, NGOs, academics, journalists—after Russia’s attack on Ukraine in 2014. Second, they unpack the inner workings of the assemblage by identifying the key actors and asking who did the assembling and how. Third, they look at how different actors were able to reinforce and/or transform their identities by being part of the assemblage, with an emphasis on the effects this had for the distinction between the public and the private.