No description available.

Thesis focuses on the issue of Georgia's possible receipt of Membership Action Plan (MAP), Thesis strives to represent the possibility of Georgia's MAP receipt and then subsequently in the geopolitics of NATO's enlargement. Main research areas of the thesis include the 1997. Second area of research is focused on the costs and benefits of Georgia's NATO gia's breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South

Thesis (M.A.)--Ball State University, 2009. / Title from PDF t.p. (viewed on Mar. 25, 2010). Research paper (M.A.), 3 hrs. Includes bibliographical references (p. 41-45).

The thesis aims to discuss effectiveness of the international conflict resolution in the region of the South Caucasus, analyzing the challenges to international efforts to solve the three conflict cases: the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh is among the frozen disputes in the region, the others Abkhazia and the South Ossetia are nominally independent states, however de facto occupied by Russia. It is the fact that three regional players Russia, Turkey and Iran and global players Russia, US, EU have different type of impacts to conflict settlements in the region which directly relate to their political and economic interests. Therefore, after two decades of mediation by powerful states provided no final resolution with numerous attempts at mediation, wherein the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) has taken the lead. The complicated and interdepended relations of states make this region highly sensitive area for war and peace in the world theatrical chessboard. Author also analyzes the effectiveness of conflict management between the parties by focusing on conflicts in the South Caucasus region mentioning their historical, political, security and ethnic dimensions, where international organizations, namely OSCE, UN, EU involve.

<p>This essay aims to analyse if the Russian military operation carried out against Georgia between the 7^th and 12^th of august 2008 were executed with adherence to the Russian principles for military deception, <em>maskirovka</em>.</p><p>   A superior purpose is to assess the situation according to the Swedish Armed Forces task of identifying possible needs for new or changed needs for abilities and competence.</p><p>   The method used is two-alternative hypotheses which are tried by comparing actual events before and during the Russian-Georgian war with the ten methods of <em>maskirovka</em>, compiled from military analytical literature. Such traces of resemblance are further examined, both individually and as a part of a larger indication.</p><p>   Further the essay describes the Russian art of war, the prerequisites for military surprise, information warfare in Russian doctrine, the disputed territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and the principles for <em>maskirovka</em>.</p><p>   The conclusion is that the Russian operation was executed with some adherence to maskirovka, though unspecified of to what degree.</p><p>   Author of this essay is Cadet Martin Svensson of the Swedish Army, currently a student at the Armed Forces Technical School in Halmstad.</p>

This essay aims to analyse if the Russian military operation carried out against Georgia between the 7th and 12th of august 2008 were executed with adherence to the Russian principles for military deception, maskirovka.    A superior purpose is to assess the situation according to the Swedish Armed Forces task of identifying possible needs for new or changed needs for abilities and competence.    The method used is two-alternative hypotheses which are tried by comparing actual events before and during the Russian-Georgian war with the ten methods of maskirovka, compiled from military analytical literature. Such traces of resemblance are further examined, both individually and as a part of a larger indication.    Further the essay describes the Russian art of war, the prerequisites for military surprise, information warfare in Russian doctrine, the disputed territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and the principles for maskirovka.    The conclusion is that the Russian operation was executed with some adherence to maskirovka, though unspecified of to what degree.    Author of this essay is Cadet Martin Svensson of the Swedish Army, currently a student at the Armed Forces Technical School in Halmstad.

During the 2008 South Ossetia war, Georgia and Russia fought what the English-language media called "a public relations war“. This was an interesting example of modern information warfare where governments allied with public relations agencies battled for symbolic power on the media field. This study investigates the information campaign that the Georgian government launched to promote their framing of the conflict in the English-language media. First-hand information about the campaign strategies and techniques is gathered by interviewing the people who worked as PR consultants for the Georgian government during the war in 2008. The eventual PR output is mapped and press release texts are compared with articles from The New York Times and The Washington Post in a framing analysis. The results indicate that Georgia won the PR war as the coverage in the U.S. newspapers clearly supported Georgia's framing. This outcome is attributed to the Georgian side's media management activities that skillfully anticipated the needs of the foreign correspondents covering the conflict. However, the study points out that the supportive coverage was not the result of Georgia's information campaign only. Other factors have to be taken into account, most notably the U.S. administration's strong backing of the Georgian leadership that shaped the tone of the articles written about the war. Future research should look at how the war was covered in countries with less explicit political support for Georgia, as well as investigate the PR efforts on the Russian side during and after the war.

This thesis deals with the South Ossetian- Georgian conflict and its internationalization especially since the Rose revolution in Georgia in 2003. The main objective of the thesis is to examine the changes in the rivalry between Russia and the United States over the Caucasus and their effects on the relations between Georgia and the South Ossetia. The thesis argues that the development of the conflict between Georgia and the South Ossetia has been shaped by the changes in the level of involvement by Russia and the United States rather than the bilateral relations between Tbilisi and Tskhinvali. Thus, international and systematic factors are more determining than local dynamics of this conflict. The thesis has six chapters, including the introduction and conclusion chapters. After the introduction, the second chapter examines the ethnic origins of the Ossetians and the Georgians as well as historical background of their relations. The third chapter analyzes the sources of the conflict and the 1991-1992 war between Georgia and the South Ossetia. The fourth chapter discusses the 2003 Rose revolution in Georgia and its affects on Georgia&rsquo / s relations with the Western powers, namely the United States and the European Union. The fifth chapter examines the worsening relations between Russia and Georgia after the Rose revolution as well as the Russian-Georgian War in 2008 with its international consequences.

ix, 161 p. : maps / In 2002, the Russian government began distributing tens of thousands of Russian passports in the de facto states of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Some scholarly attention has been devoted to this process, known as passportization, but most of the literature treats passportization as a primarily political process, ignoring its geographic aspects. This thesis shows that passportization in Abkhazia and South Ossetia amounted to a process of "biocolonization," wherein the populations of the de facto states were discursively captured by Russia through individual naturalization. Consequently, passportization served to create "Russian spaces" within the internationally recognized borders of Georgia and, in the process challenged international legal norms rooted in the logic of the modern state system. / Committee in charge: Dr. Alexander Murphy, Chair; Dr. Shaul Cohen, Member; Dr. Julie Hessler, Member

No description available.