Abstract The notion of shameless normalization is applied in the paper to argue that the Serbian ruling party's press releases introduce shameless normalization of expressing sycophancy toward the leader. Within the framework of critical (political) discourse analysis postulating that social actors' use of language is vested with interests that need to be linguistically managed, the paper focuses on how the proposed strategies in political discourse – coercion, legitimisation and (mis)representation – manage the interest of the authors of press releases in realization of sycophancy. The analysis shows that the shameless normalization of sycophancy is realized by coercing the recipients to accept the exclusive right of the leader to represent the homogenized people of Serbia (the ingroup). This exclusive right is legitimized through positive representation of the leader as the self of the ingroup. Such legitimisation is enabled by misrepresentation both in terms of quality and quantity of the information conveyed.
This paper tries to determine the period when the first contacts between Serbs and Russians happened and to follow their development, as well as the parallels between the two nations up until the end of the Early Middle Ages, i.e., the end of the 12th century. It is needless to say that the sources on this topic are extremely scarce. We shall rely on the data provided by Cosmas of Prague because there was some confusion over the similarity of the names Russian (Serbian: Rus) and Ras (citizen of Raška). We shall try to answer the question when the first encounters between the two nations could have happened.We shall point out the importance of worship in the Slavic language, the intertwining of the culture of both these nations, and the similarities when it comes to establishing the cults of the first saints. The first recorded arrival of a Russian to Serbia dates form the end of the 12th century. A monk came to Grand Prince Stefan Nemanja's court, and after that Rastko left and went to a Russian monastery on Mount Atos.
Th e relatively predictable nature of international relations has changed, and today's strategic planners must take into consideration a large number of related security issues starting primarily from globalization as the dominant process in the international community. Faced with new challenges and threats, the post-modern society is obliged to make some changes of military missions from classical towards non-traditional missions for preservation and building of peace and its use in its own territory as a complement to civilian resources in cases of various crisis situations. Inevitably the question is what new asymmetric security challenges brought and where they settled Army as a pillar of national internal and external security. Th e new security reality also brings about a higher degree of interdependence between civilian andmilitary actors.Th ese changes result in a phenomenon that might be called a post-modern paradox – connecting and distancing of the armed forces from the society. And as the fi rst is caused by the mixing of internal and external security risks, and by increasing cooperation between military and civilian institutions, the second segment is caused by inevitable professionalization of the army and its transition to international missions. Th e given situation Charles Moskos represents in the following way "the perceptions of threats and opportunities presented in the light of the international situation shaped by military forces, military missions, and the relationship of the military in society."Th e wave of migrants, as a result of the war in the Middle East, has opened the Balkan route as the main entrance of migrants to Western Europe. Large infl ux of migrants, imposed this issue as fi rst-class security problem, which caused strain of all resources of the state at the specifi ed route and the involvement of the army in its peacetime mission assistance to civil authorities in emergencies. Th is fact showed that the army, with its organization, status, reputation, resources represents the pillar of the existence of internal security.Starting with the request that the army should have the ability to ensure compatibility with civil factors within the overall national security forces, modular military structure for missions in emergencies can be an option for adequate response.
The term politics, from its origin until nowadays, has been closely related to coercion and effects of coercion. The first rulers were finding support in a belief in the divine nature of power, but since, in time, this belief faded, the solution was found in physical superiority of rulers. The development of politics as an activity by which a community can be governed instrumentally, conditioned its closer linkage to force. Politics was sometimes identified with force, and sometimes politics was using force as an instrument for taming the bullying by others. Undoubtedly, the man is a rational and instinctive being. Monopolization of bullying within political activity made it possible to place the force, depending on the circumstances, into the service of one or the other attribute of human nature. Integration processes in political, economic, military and other areas, significantly contributed to changing the role of a national state in its formerly inviolable spheres, even in those elements that are considered classic attributes of the state as an institution (sovereignty, independence, monetary policy, defense, state power legitimacy, etc). Does this power, which is 'taken away' from the national state, go away, through integrative processes with other international subjects, to some distant power and alienated centers, or does it, on the contrary, enter the corpus of political activity that strengthens its overall position? Without immersing into more profound analysis about what is closer to the truth, it is a fact that through integrative processes a number of 'state' activities is transferred to joint institutions. In the spirit of this paper, the most important institutions are those which decide about organization, preparing, functioning, and using of the state (interstate) power. Strategic solutions concerning these matters, are a part of domestic and intergovernmental policy. They are products of a great number of internal and external factors, starting from economic and institutional, to social and cultural-traditional, and to international.
The term politics, from its origin until nowadays, has been closely related to coercion and effects of coercion. The first rulers were finding support in a belief in the divine nature of power, but since, in time, this belief faded, the solution was found in physical superiority of rulers. The development of politics as an activity by which a community can be governed instrumentally, conditioned its closer linkage to force. Politics was sometimes identified with force, and sometimes politics was using force as an instrument for taming the bullying by others. Undoubtedly, the man is a rational and instinctive being. Monopolization of bullying within political activity made it possible to place the force, depending on the circumstances, into the service of one or the other attribute of human nature. Integration processes in political, economic, military and other areas, significantly contributed to changing the role of a national state in its formerly inviolable spheres, even in those elements that are considered classic attributes of the state as an institution (sovereignty, independence, monetary policy, defense, state power legitimacy, etc). Does this power, which is 'taken away' from the national state, go away, through integrative processes with other international subjects, to some distant power and alienated centers, or does it, on the contrary, enter the corpus of political activity that strengthens its overall position? Without immersing into more profound analysis about what is closer to the truth, it is a fact that through integrative processes a number of 'state' activities is transferred to joint institutions. In the spirit of this paper, the most important institutions are those which decide about organization, preparing, functioning, and using of the state (interstate) power. Strategic solutions concerning these matters, are a part of domestic and intergovernmental policy. They are products of a great number of internal and external factors, starting from economic and institutional, to social and cultural-traditional, and to international. ; Pojam politika, od nastanka do današnjih dana, bio je na različite načine vezan sa prinudom i njenim efektima. Prvi vladari nalazili su oslonac u verovanju u božanski karakter vlasti, ali, kako se on vremenom sve više gubio, rešenje je nalaženo u fizičkoj nadmoći vlastodržaca. Razvoj politike kao delatnosti kojom se može instrumentalno vladati zajednicom, uslovio je njeno bliže vezivanje za silu. Ponekad se politika poistovećivala sa njom, a nekada ju je koristila kao faktor za kroćenje nasilništva drugih. Čovek je, bez sumnje, i racionalno i nagonsko biće. Monopolizacija nasilja u okviru političke delatnosti omogućila je da se, u zavisnosti od uslova, sila stavi u službu jednog ili drugog njegovog obeležja. Integrativni procesi u političkoj, ekonomskoj, vojnoj i drugim oblastima značajno su doprineli promeni uloge nacionalne države u nekada njenim neprikosnovenim sferama, pa čak i u onim elementima koji se smatraju klasičnim obeležjima države kao institucije (suverenost, nezavisnost, monetarna politika, odbrana, legitimnost državne vlasti, itd.). Da li ta snaga koja se 'oduzima' od nacionalne države, putem integracije sa drugim međunarodnim subjektima, odlazi u neke građanima daleke i otuđene centre moći ili, naprotiv, ona ulazi u onaj korpus političkog organizovanja kojim se jača njihova ukupna pozicija? Bez ulaženja u dublju analizu o tome šta je bliže istini, činjenica je da se kroz proces integracije, deo 'državnih' poslova prenosi na zajedničke institucije. U duhu ovog rada, najznačajnije su one koje odlučuju o načinima organizovanja, pripreme, funkcionisanja i upotrebe državne (međudržavne) sile. Strategijska rešenja vezana za ta pitanja deo su aktivnosti i državne i međudržavne politike. Ona su rezultanta delatnosti brojnih unutrašnjih i spoljašnjih faktora, počev od ekonomskog i institucionalnog, preko socijalnog i kulturno-tradicionalnog, do međunarodnog.
There are many essentially similar interpretations of the concept of logistics in contemporary science. Interpretations are primarily concerned with the economic aspect and purpose of logistics. Definitions differ only according to the number of processes that are included or the way in which they could be managed. The similar situation is with the definitions of military logistics although they encompass greater number of various processes. There are not many definitions of national logistics in literature. Once definitions are found, they are related to national support to economy. In order to bridge the gap between the concept of logistics in the economic aspect and for the purpose of meeting logistical needs of the people, the armed forces, security sector and others involved in crises situations, the necessary coverage and content of the concept of national logistics in the broader sense has been reached on the basis of analysis of literature, relevant factors and their mutual relations. The research of the meaning of the concept has been done for the utmost practical reason - explanation of the importance and coverage of something that has to be managed in practice, that requires development of an appropriate strategy, planning, organising and developing regulatory framework in order to better prepare a country for the inevitable occurrence of crises situations and effective and efficient response in such case. ; Postoji mnogo, po suštini sličnih tumačenja pojma logistika u savremenoj nauci. Tumačenja prvenstveno tretiraju privredni aspekt i svrhu logistike. Definicije se razlikuju samo prema broju procesa koji su obuhvaćeni ili načinu kako bi se njima moglo upravljati. Slično je i sa definicijama vojne logistike i ako one obuhvataju veći broj različitih procesa. U literaturi se ne može naći veliki broj definicija nacionalne logistike. I kada se nađu, one se odnose na nacionalnu podršku privredi. Zbog premošćavanja jaza između poimanja logistike u privrednom smislu i smislu zadovoljavanja logističkih potreba naroda, vojske, bezbednosnih i drugih angažovanih sastava u kriznim situacijama, a na osnovu analize literature, relevantnih činilaca i međusobnih odnosa došlo se do neophodnog obuhvata i sadržaja pojma nacionalne logistike u širem smislu. Istraživanje značenja pojma rađeno je iz krajnje praktičnog razloga - objašnjavanja značaja i obuhvata nečega čime u praksi treba upravljati, za šta treba koncipirati odgovarajuću strategiju, planirati, organizovati i razviti regulatorni okvir kako bi se zemlja bolje pripremila za neumitni dolazak kriznih situacija i efektivan i efikasan odgovor u tom slučaju.
After the collapse of the Soviet state, during the last decades of the 21st century, Russia found itself in the system crisis in cataclysmic measures that threatened to disintegrate this once powerful state. Political and economic power was significantly displaced outside the institutions of the system in the hands of oligarchs and regional governors, which threaten to disintegrate the federal system and problems in the economic, social, demographic and military sphere shook the foundations of the Russian state. On the international stage, Russia's influence was marginalized. All the elements of its hard and soft power were reduced. Russia has lost the attributes of a superpower and the leader of the former socialist camp was reduced to the level of a regional power. With the arrival of Vladimir Putin as the President of the RF in 2000 began a new phase in the development of post-Soviet Russia. Initiated extensive internal political, economic and social reforms, as well as changes in foreign and security policy, resulted in a gradual recovery and consolidation of the Russian state and society. An essential feature of political life in Russia is the personalization of the power and the institution of the President of the RF, which largely depends on the personality of the president and his inner circle. This distinction is rooted in the political tradition and culture, and the imperial legacy. Some Western authors state that the tradition of the autocratic rule is in the heart of Russian political culture, while Russian authors believe that a strong central government, embodied in the institution of the head of state in modern Russia is a necessity in the initial phase of democratization and social transition. From the beginning, Putin has sought to pour "people from their inner circle" "into all levels of government and spheres that generate social and political power." This profiled the structure of Putin's regime, which is a very active process of permanent change of position, role and importance of individual personalities, as well as their "migration" from one sphere of government to another. In the process, the overall fluctuations of high-ranking politicians, divided into clans and influential groups (the so-called siloviki, technocrats and liberals), Putin is the "headquarters" of the entire regime. Estimates of the regime of Russian President V. Putin, his personality, as well as a trail that is left in modern history, are more polarized and controversial than estimates of many other figures of Russia, and even global politics. However, the importance that Putin has for Russia and its position and role in the XXI century is undeniable, as well as his controversial planetary authority, or his global popularity. Putin is one of the most influential politicians in the world and the authors' opinions of him are so divided, conflicting, contradictory and "ideologically colored" that any attempt of his generalization represents an endeavor foredoomed to failure. The amplitude of reactions is ranging from awe and glorification, to protest and scorn. It is undisputed that he is a charismatic, pragmatic and capable statesman. It is also an indisputable fact that the implementation of his policy has the outright support of the Russian people. Critics of Putin's regime as its main characteristic state the rigidity of the government, inflexibility, lack of transparency, bureaucratic domination of political and economic elites, instability in the sense of being based on the personality of the President and not on the balance of institutions. ; Nakon raspada sovjetske države Rusija se našla u sistemskoj krizi koja je pretila da dezintegriše nekada moćnu državu. Politička i ekonomska moć bila je u značajnoj meri izmeštena van institucija sistema, u ruke oligarha i regionalnih gubernatora. Problemi u ekonomskoj, socijalnoj, demografskoj i vojnoj sferi potresali su temelje ruske države. Na međunarodnoj sceni, uticaj Rusije bio je marginalizovan. Svi elementi njene tvrde i meke moći, bili su umanjeni. Rusija je izgubila atribute supersile i nekadašnja predvodnica socijalističkog lagera svedena je na nivo regionalne sile. Dolaskom Vladimira Putina na mesto predsednika RF 2000. godine, počela je nova faza u razvoju postsovjetske Rusije. Pokrenute su opsežne unutrašnje političke, ekonomske i socijalne reforme, kao i promene u spoljnoj i bezbednosnoj politici, što je rezultiralo postepenim oporavkom i konsolidacijom ruske države i društva. Jedna od suštinskih odlika političkog života Rusije jeste personalizacija vlasti, odnosno institucije Predsednika RF, koja u velikoj meri zavisi od ličnosti samog predsednika i njegovog najbližeg okruženja. Ova odlika ukorenjena je u političkoj tradiciji i kulturi, odnosno u imperijalnom nasleđu. Pojedini zapadni autori navode da je tradicija autokratskog vladanja u srži ruske političke kulture, dok ruski autori smatraju da snažna centralna vlast, oličena u instituciji predsednika države, u savremenoj Rusiji predstavlja nužnost u početnoj fazi demokratizacije i tranzicije društva. Putin je od početka nastojao da "ljude iz svog najbližeg okruženja "razlije" u sve nivoe vlasti i sfere koje generišu društvenu i političku moć". Time se profilisala struktura Putinovog režima u kojoj je veoma aktivan proces permanentne smene pozicija, uloga i značaja pojedinih ličnosti, kao i njihovo "seljenje" iz jedne sfere vlasti u drugu. U celokupnom tom procesu fluktacije visoko-pozicioniranih političara, svrstanih u uticajne grupe i klanove (tzv. siloviki, tehnokrate i liberali), Putin ima ulogu "stožera" celokupnog režima. Ocene o režimu ruskog predsednika V. Putina, njegovoj ličnosti, kao i tragu koji je ostavio u modernoj istoriji, polarizovanije su i kontroverznije nego ocene o mnogim drugim ličnostima ruske, pa i globalne politike. Međutim, značaj koji Putin ima za Rusiju i njenu poziciju i ulogu u XXI veku, nesporan je, kao što nisu sporni ni njegov planetarni autoritet, ni njegova globalna popularnost. Putin je jedan od najuticajnijih političara na svetu, ali su mišljenja autora u vezi sa njim toliko podeljena, oprečna, suprotstavljena i "ideološki obojena", da bi svaki pokušaj njihove generalizacije predstavljao poduhvat unapred osuđen na neuspeh. Amplitude reakcija kreću se od glorifikacije i divljenja, do osporavanja i nipodaštavanja. Nesporno je da je reč o harizmatičnom, pragmatičnom i sposobnom državniku, kao što je nesporna i činjenica da za sprovođenje svoje politike ima natpolovičnu podršku ruskog naroda. Kritičari Putinovog režima kao njegove osnovne odlike navode rigidnost vlasti, nefleksibilnost, netransparentnost, birokratizovanost, dominaciju političko- ekonomskih elita, nestabilnost u smislu zasnovanosti na ličnosti predsednika, a ne na balansu institucija.
At a time when the United Nations mark 70 years of its existence, when the leaders of the 193 member states of this world organization adopted, with a lot of faith, a transformative 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the world is faced with many difficult challenges to security. Effective indicators of contemporary international security, as well as the challenges, risks and threats that reflect it, show that the security of the modern world has been jeopardized, directly or indirectly, in the highest possible degree, since the end of the Second World War. That is why there is increasing importance of the United Nations, which, with all its drawbacks over the past seventy years, have represented the best model of multilateral cooperation in the field of security and without whose existence the world would have much larger international problems. The efforts this organization makes with the aim to protect and establish peace in the world must be respected, and the contents of the UN General Assembly resolution 59/565 A of 2004, devoted to threats to the international security, should be seen in that light as well.
After the end of World War II a new era started in international relations. With the defeat of Nazism, fascism and Japanese militarism a decisive role in the creation of this new era played he members of the winning coalition - the United States, Great Britain and the Soviet Union. However, the character of international political relations of the second half of the 20th century was essentially determined by the nature of the relationship between the two super-powers: the USA and the USSR. The deterioration of relations between these two forces started after the Soviet government had taken certain steps in Poland, Iran, Greece and Turkey. These moves were interpreted by the Americans as an attempt to extend the hitherto mutually recognized sphere of influence of the Soviet Union. Russia today believes that the red line has been crossed in Syria, although some dissatisfaction was also shown by Russia on account of the events taking place in Iraq and Libya. Due to conflicting conceptions of foreign policy of the USA and the USSR (the former USSR) and contemporary Russia and the measures taken in order to materialize these policies, strictly in accordance with their own interests, there has been a permanent tension on the international political scene. One gets the impression that the current events represent a sort of closing of the circle and return to the starting positions characteristic of the period before the Second World War.
