Researcher
Julie Wilhelmsen
Contactinfo and files
Summary
Julie Wilhelmsen is Research Professor at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs. She holds a PhD in political science and conducts research in the fields of critical security studies, Russian foreign and security policies and the radicalization of Islam in Eurasia.
The two post-soviet Chechen wars have been a constant focus in her research and she is also heads projects related to conflict resolution in the North Caucasus. From 2012 to 2016 she was the editor of the Scandinavian-language journal Internasjonal Politikk, and has a wide outreach to the Norwegian public on issues related to Russia and Eurasia through frequent public talks and media comments. In 2019 – 2021 Wilhelmsen is an expert in the Cooperative Security Initiative (CSI), an initiative which is designed to generate ideas and shift momentum in favor of cooperative security and multilateralism through the OSCE in order to build a safer Europe.
Expertise
Education
2014 Ph.D in Political Science, University of Oslo. Areas of specialisation: Russian Politics, Critical Security Studies, Discourse Analysis
1999 Cand.Polit. (Political Science), University of Oslo
1996 Master of Science in Russian and Post-Soviet Studies, London School of Economics and Political Science
1995 Mellomfag in Political Science, University of Oslo
1994 Mellomfag in Russian, University of Oslo
Work Experience
2022- Head of the Research group on Russia, Asia and International Trade
2022- Research professor
2014-2022 Senior Researcher, NUPI
2003-2014 Researcher, Centre for Russian Studies, NUPI
2001-2003 Researcher and Project manager, Norwegian Defence Reseach Establishment
1999-2001 Higher executive officer, Norwegian Directorate of Immigration
Aktivitet
Filter
Clear all filtersKrigen mot terror - et vanskelig bindemiddel mellom Russland og USA
The Unsustainable Russia-US Partnership in the War on Terror. Russia and the USA forged a strategic partnership following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Today it seems obvious that such a partnership would not last. But why did it break? The article argues that the Kremlin leaves the partnership because its expectations of mutuality were not met. Russia also fundamentally disagreed with the USA on the sources of international terrorism and how best to conduct GWOT. Russia’s revival under Putin’s leadership is an underlying cause and implies that the terrorist threat is overshadowed be the traditional fear of NATO and US dominance. Albeit still figuring among the issue-areas suggested for US-Russian collaboration, the common fight against international terrorism will not function as a vehicle for rapprochement in the current cold war climate.
Putins mareritt kan gjenoppstå i Afghanistan
Taliban's victory in Afghanistan seems to create new geopolitical opportunities for Russia, but could also turn into Putin's nightmare. After the fall of the Soviet Union Taliban rule over Afghanistan contributed fuel violent mobilization in the North Caucasus via a spillover of ideas and fighters. It could do so again.
Russian reframing: Norway as an outpost for NATO offensives
Russian Repertoires of Power in the MENA region (RUSMENA)
The main objective of the RUSMENA project is to examine Russian power practices in the Middle East and Northern Africa (MENA) region between 2011 and 2021....
Research group for Russia, Asia and International Trade
Research group for Russia, Asia and International Trade
The Chechen post-war diaspora in Norway and their visions of legal models
This article examines how understandings of the rule of law are shaped in the Chechen diaspora in Norway. Taking as our point of departure studies of legal pluralism and the co-existence of traditional Adat, religious Sharia and Russian secular law in Chechnya, we examine the effect of living in a host country by asking: How do members of the Chechen diaspora, here defined as conflict-generated diaspora, view and internalize legal models in Norway? What type of state governance do they see as ideal for themselves and for Chechnya in the future? Further: what might the underlying explanation for their choices be? We assume that just as different waves of violence in Chechnya created different diaspora communities that today exhibit specific social, cultural and political traits, the latest wave of forced emigration to Europe after the post-Soviet Russo–Chechen wars may have made specific imprints on the legal preferences of this diaspora. The picture that emerges from our in-depth individual interviews and surveys is one of gradual adaptation and adjustment to Norwegian state governance and rule of law, demonstrating the complex and co-constitutive relationships between changing identities and legal preferences.
Russia’s view of Georgia: a NATO proxy yet again?
After the crises in Ukraine, and despite the Georgian government’s allegedly more pragmatic attitude towards Russia, official statements from Moscow increasingly project Georgia as hostile. This may be the result of the Kremlin stepping up a propaganda campaign to put pressure on Georgia, but it is also linked to growing perceptions of Georgia as becoming an agent of NATO. Moreover, Russia’s increasingly insistent rhetorical and practical support for the independent status of the two Georgian breakaway republics, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, is still framed with reference to Kosovo as a tit-for-tat in a conflict with the West. In parallel with this hardening in Russian views, there is hardly any diplomatic contact between Russia and Georgia. The regional multilateral frameworks have become dysfunctional, obstructed by polarization. Further Georgian NATO integration could entail an increasing risk of war, unless frank discussions and engagement with Russia can be promoted.
Russlands forhold til og interesser i Hviterussland
Lecture to the Norwegian Parliament on Russia's relations to Belarus and what strategy the Kremlin might opt for as the crises evolves
Relations between Russia and Norway: Spiraling towards a new Cold War?
Lecture on how official rhetoric shapes and conditions the space for manoeuvre between two collective political entities. Using the examples of Norway and Russia in the period 2014-2019, I presented how the way in which political leaders talk about each other can contribute to conflict escalation.