The cyber sphere forms a fifth domain of activities were interactions between state and non-state actors could happen. It starts to play an important role within the conflicts and hostilities. Especially in these situations, international society does not have a unified view on the question how to deal with the activities in cyberspace. We could see the different forms of abuse of cyberspace also within the crisis in Ukraine. This crisis is a good example of the complexity of the legal approach and the (non)capability of the legal understanding of cyber operations and attacks. The goal of this article is to highlight this complexity and to determine the status of cyber incidents realized in the Ukraine from the perspective of international law., Jozef Valuch, Ondrej Hamuľák., and Obsahuje bibliografické odkazy
The present text maps the actual situation of the participants of the controlled resettlement from the former Soviet Union to the Czech Republic in the years 1992–1993. Better to say, it maps the situation of a group of these settlers who at present live in the village Milovice, in the revitalized former military domain in the south-eastern part of the region Střední Čechy (Central Bohemia). The aim of the research was to analyze how the settlers perceive their reception from part of the majorite society, to study their adaptive strategies and to find out if the resettlement to the Czech Republic and the choice of the mentioned locality fulfilled their wishes and to what degree. The final part of the article summarizes what the settlers see as positive and what as negative aspects of the resettlement. The text is based on repeated directed interviews and observations realized in Milovice in the years 2008–2009.
Chromosome numbers are given for 16 taxa (and one interspecific hybrid) of Hieracium subgen. Pilosella originating from Central Europe: H. apatelium Nägeli et Peter (2n = 45), H. aurantiacum L. (2n = 36), H. bauhini Besser (2n = 36, 45, 54), H. brachiatum Bertol. ex DC. (2n = 45, 48, 63, 72), H. densiflorum Tausch (2n = 36), H. echioides Lumn. (2n = 18, 27, 36), H. floribundum Wimm. et Grab. (2n = 36, 45), H. glomeratum Froel. (2n = 36, 45), H. guthnickianum Hegetschw. (2n = 54), H. lactucella Wallr. (2n = 18), H. onegense (Norrl.) Norrl. (2n = 18), H. pilosella L. (2n = 36, 45, 54), H. piloselliflorum Nägeli et Peter (2n = 36, 45), H. piloselloides Vill. (2n = 36), H. rothianum Wallr. (2n = 36), H. schultesii F. W. Schultz (2n = 45), and the hybrid H. floribundum × H. aurantiacum (2n = 36). New chromosome numbers are reported for H. brachiatum and H. floribundum. The octoploid cytotype (2n = 72), recorded in H. brachiatum, is the highest ploidy level ever found in plants from the subgen. Pilosella originating from the field. Aneuploidy, rare in this subgenus in Europe, occurs in this hybridogenous species as well: it was recorded in one plant (2n = 48) collected in a hybrid swarm H. pilosella × H. bauhini. The breeding system in H. bauhini, H. brachiatum, H. densiflorum, H. echioides, H. pilosella, H. piloselloides, and H. rothianum was studied. The sexual reproduction of pentaploid H. pilosella is a new observation: it means an increase of diversity in possible reproduction modes of those cytotypes having odd chromosome numbers.
The aim of the following text was to intermediate the personal reflection of migrants of preponderantly Czech origin who were in the years 1991-1993 resettled from the former Soviet Union to the Czech Republic. Better to say, the article focuses on one specific group of these displaced persons who came in the year 1993 and have lived since then in the locality Kopidlno. The main aim of the text is to reflect the way how the refugees themselves at present assess the motivation for their leaving of the land of their forefathers, how they evaluate their adaptation and integration with respect to the locality in which they live, how did they cope with the „resettlement shock“ and how did they succeed in the „competition“ with the majority society, for example at work. The final part of the text presents the differences in assessment of the return migration process and in evaluation of the locality between the first and second generation of the return migrants. The text was based on repeated guided interviews and observations realized in the locality of Kopidlno during the years 2008-2010.
Th e image of a dismantled statue of Lenin from Ukraine being transported up the Danube in Th eo Angelopoulos’s 1995 fi lm Ulysses’ Gaze is the starting point for a discussion of the fi lm’s urgent resonance with the questioning of “Europe” in the present day. Th is image foreshadows the destruction of Lenin statues in Ukraine during the ongoing civil war and is more than a fortuitous indicator of the historical context of the present Ukrainian crisis in the aftermath of the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991. Exploring the territory of seven post-Cold War Eastern European states and ending amid the rubble and destruction of the besieged city of Sarajevo, Ulysses’ Gaze off ers a panoramic, yet highly subjective, depiction of a Europe undergoing a painful and as-yet-undecided transition. Th is article will show the strong connections between the understanding of Europe that emerges from the fi lm and that elucidated in the work of the Czech philosopher Jan Patočka. Both the fi lm and Patočka’s thought seek the European on a utopian level that transcends particular temporal and territorial borders, recalls Classical polity and philosophy, and consists primarily in introspective thinking. Th e recurrence, in today’s Europe, of questions from the immediate post-Cold War era indicates that the work of defi nition undertaken after 1989 is not yet completed and suggests that fi lms from that period may contain images that have the capacity to guide the process of understanding Europe in the present day.
Petro Shelest (1908–1997), the First Secretary of the Communist Party of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and a member of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, was one of the strongest advocates of an armed invasion of Czechoslovakia among Soviet leaders in 1968. The Soviet leadership tasked him to maintain contacts with the so-called healthy forces in the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia; in the beginning of August, Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia Vasil Biľak (1917–2014) secretly handed over to him the notorious “letter of invitation” in public lavatories in Bratislava. The author asks a fundamental question whether it is possible to identify a specific Ukrainian factor which stepped into the Prague Spring process and contributed to its tragic end. He attempts to capture Shelest’s position in the decision-making process and describe information that Shelest was working with., To this end, he has made use of reports of the Committee for State Security (Komitet gosudarstvennoi bezopasnosti – KGB) of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic on developments in Czechoslovakia and reactions thereto among Ukrainian citizens produced in the spring and summer of 1968, which were being sent to Shelest and other Ukrainian leaders. These documents have lately been made available in Ukrainian archives and partly published on the website of the Institute for the Study of Totalitarian Regimes. Their analysis brings the author to a conclusion that they were offering a considerably distorted picture of the situation. Instead of relevant information and analyses, they only present various clichés, ideological rhetoric, inaccuracies, or downright nonsenses. Their source were often members of the Czechoslovak State Security who were often motivated by worries about their own careers and existence and were acting on their own., and The uncritical acceptance of the documents contributed to a situation in which in the leader of the Ukrainian Communists and other Soviet representatives were creating unrealistic pictures of the events taking place in Czechoslovakia, believing that anti-socialist forces were winning, anti-Soviet propaganda was prevailing, and Western intelligence agencies were strengthening their position in Czechoslovakia, and that there was a threat that the events that had taken place in Hungary in 1956 would repeat themselves again. As indicated by his published diary entries and other documents, Petro Shelest was using these allegations both in discussions inside his own party and during negotiations with Czechoslovak politicians. Just like in the case of the leaders of Polish and East German Communists, Władysław Gomułka and Walter Ulbricht, respectively, the principal reason why Shelest was promoting a solution of the Czechoslovak crisis by force was, in the author’s opinion, his fear of “contagion” of his own society by events taking place in Czechoslovakia which the Ukraine shared a border with.