Marko Dašić

Povlačenje američkih trupa iz Avganistana tokom avgusta 2001. godine stavilo je tačku na najduži rat koji je SAD ikada vodila, kao i na prvu fazu globalnog rata protiv terorizma. U tom smislu, javljaju se dva važna pitanja, na koja ćemo pokušati da odgovorimo u ovom radu. Prvo, koje su ključne spoljne i unutrašnje posledice sa kojima se SAD suočavaju zbog rata protiv terorizma? Drugo, da li su SAD postigle svoje ciljeve u tom ratu. Spoljni efekti koje smo identifikovali su kriza globalnog liderstva, slabljenje odnosa sa saveznicima, rast Kine i rast populizma. Među unutrašnjim, izdvajaju se jačanje predsedničke funkcije, povećanje moći države, društvena polarizacija, povećanje budžetske potrošnje i rastući deficit, kao i ljudske žrtve. Na samom kraju, doprineli smo debati o prirodi američke „pobede“ u ratu protiv terorizma, argumentujući da finalni ishod treba da bude smatran „Pirovom pobedom“.

Analogije u spoljnoj politici predstavljaju jedan od najvažnijih načina na koji se politički odlučioci snalaze na „nepoznatom terenu“, to jest u situacijama sa kojim se do tada nisu suočavali. Vođeni logikom pojednostavljivanja stvarnosti kako bi mogli da je razumeju, jedna od najčešćih „prečica“ jesu istorijske analogije. Glavna je hipoteza ovog rada da su naši politički odlučioci u odnosima sa Sjedinjenim Američkim Državama pokušavali da primene dve takve analogije koje su se vremenom pokazale kao pogrešne, to jest kao nedovoljne i neadekvatne za primenu u izmenjenim okolnostima. Prva je ona s početka dvehiljaditih, kada smo sa Sjedinjenim Državama pokušali da uspostavimo odnose strateškog partnerstva na osnovama onoga što je Titova Jugoslavija uradila posle raskida sa Staljinom. Druga analogija je ona koja se odigrava danas, a to je pokušaj da savezničke odnose iz vremena Prvog svetskog rata projektujemo na savremene odnose, posebno imajući u vidu rešavanje statusa Kosova i Metohije i aktuelne pregovore sa Prištinom. Naše je mišljenje da se u oba slučaja radi o pogrešnim analogijama pre svega jer je kontekst bitno drugačiji i da je svaka istorijska epoha neponovljiva i samo sebi svojstvena. Takođe, problem su i dijametralno suprotni narativi koji opterećuju naše odnose budući da ti narativi, po teorijskoj matrici Timotija Snajdera, počivaju na dve suprotstavljene logike, logici neizbežnosti i logici večnosti. Jedno od mogućih rešenja jeste ono što Robert Akselrod zove „senkom budućnosti“, to jest pokušaj da se saradnja dva aktera nastavi tako što nas neki dobri odnosi iz prošlosti motivišu da i dalje sarađujemo bez obzira na sve prepreke i uzdrmano poverenje u odnosima između dve strane.

In this article, the authors analyze the most significant achievements of the current dynamics of the accession of the Western Balkans to the EU (Process of Stabilization and Association), with a special emphasis on numerous issues that stand in the “European way” of these countries. In this context, a specific analysis will be linked to numerous internal problems in the Western Balkans countries, as well as in their bilateral relations, and how does this affect the possible acceleration of the European integration process. Of course, the authors in this paper devoted considerable attention to the role of “non-EU” countries in the region of the Western Balkans, especially the Russian Federation, the Republic of Turkey and the People's Republic of China. Also, the presentation will discuss how the countries of the Western Europe, which obviously will remain dominant in the European Union in the next period (Germany, France and Italy) will position themselves concerning a new enlargement of the EU to the Western Balkans. Also, the unfinished process of Brexit (2016) opens up some problems when it comes to the entering the countries of the Western Balkans into the European Union. Certainly, there are some "weak points" in the European integration process of the Western Balkans countries (corruption and organized crime in the case of Montenegro, relations with the government in Pristina when it comes to Serbia, etc.).

The United States presidential election, the most important political election in the world, resulted in Donald Trump’s victory. This year’s election was, for many reasons, historical. For the first time ever, one of the major parties’ candidates was a woman, and the winner was the person that collected half the funds the other candidate did, and that has almost no political experience whatsoever. It seems that Donald Trump faced more problems and resistance than any other presidential candidate before him, and was basically written off at the very beginning of the election. He took on other candidates, the Republican Party, the media, political analysts, but also his own nature and character. Later on, he faced the Democratic machinery led by Hillary Clinton. It is hard to even list all the challenges he experienced. However, the biggest one seems to be American demographics – the unfavorable demographic trends Republicans have been dealing with for decades. Trump was narrowing his potential electorate by making harsh and offensive statements about women and minorities, and it seemed it was demographics that would stand in the way of his victory. However, come November 9^th, these expectations turned out to be unjustified. In this paper, we will try to answer how Donald Trump, despite almost all predictions, managed to overcome the “demographic problem” and win the 2016 U.S. presidential election, and we aim to do this by analyzing social and party line divisions, demographic trends and election strategies.