Suchergebnisse

The relationship of the subsystem of foreign policy and defense of the state
has a cause-and-effect character, but nevertheless with a more significant
influence of foreign policy on the defense of the state. The state defense
system is a relatively independent factor, but in practice, it functions as a
means or an instrument of foreign policy, which contributes to the successful
realization and protection of the unified state goals on the international
plane. The basic question asked in this paper is "What kind of the
relationship between the state sub-systems of foreign policy and defense can
be considered optimal in the state's efforts to realize and protect vital
interests in the current state of international relations"? Each of the
aforementioned subsystems has its own specifics of organizing and functioning
in the process of creating and practicing the foreign policy of the state.
The attitude of the state's subsystems of foreign policy and defense is most
visible in the legal normative arrangement, the contents of the foreign
policy positions of the highest state managers and strategic documents,
functional cohesion, participation in regional and global international
initiatives and organizations, participation in multinational operations, as
well as in the process of information supply state leadership need for
foreign policy decisions. Through analysis and description of the current
situation in the foreign policy and defense subsystem, as well as their
mutual relationship, critical elements of the systems and processes have been
identified in order to be able to overcome the projection of the foreign
policy of the state.

The authors deliberate that the EU?s soft power leadership has been
inadequate during certain periods of the pandemic, being additionally
challenged by proactive campaigns of other international actors. According
to the authors, such EU underperformance primarily lies in the damaging fact
that the Union perceives and treats aspects like the inoculation process not
solely as a health-humanitarian issue, but also as a geostrategic activity.
The authors consider that EU logic has been largely shaped by the
pre-existing geopolitical distaste for China and Russia, and hence also
their subsequent COVID-19-related engagement in Europe. Apart from strategic
rivalries, EU international status has been exacerbated by deteriorating
relations with the UK. According to the authors, the aforementioned
international actors have been applying various soft power instruments
during the mass inoculation process against COVID-19 in Europe, which also
resulted in consequences that are usually attributed to hard power.
Antagonisms between the abovementioned stakeholders manifest in unfavorable
phenomena such as ?vaccine nationalism? and ?jab geopolitics?. The authors
argues that a less selective, and more flexible and pragmatic approach would
have been more beneficial both for public health and the EU?s impaired
reputation in certain parts of CEE.