Heading Forward in Response to Crisis: How the Ukraine Crisis Affected EU Maritime Foreign and Security Policy Integration
This chapter discusses the impact of the Ukraine crisis on EU foreign and security policy integration. It finds that the EU has responded to Russia’s aggression by deepening cooperation in areas not directly linked to Ukraine. Two least likely cases are analyzed: The EU’s Maritime Security Strategy and the EU’s Arctic policies. In both of these cases, agreement among the EU member states to adopt a common EU policy was driven mainly by Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014. This crisis functioned as a critical juncture, moving EU security policies to the top of the EU agenda and affecting reluctant member states’ positions in favor of forming common policies. In the foreign policy domain, crisis triggers more integration as the EU member states reactively seek to address common challenges.
Russian Certainty of NATO Hostility: Repercussions in the Arctic
How does a security dilemma dynamic between parties deemed not to hold hostile intentions toward each other emerge and escalate? This article investigates Russian official discourse on NATO engagement in Europe post-Crimea (2014), and its impact on security interaction in the Arctic. We also examine how Russia represents NATO intentions and actions in a context seen by Russia as a relation of war. We identify the effect of these changing representations of self and other for the emerging securitization dilemma in relations between Russia and NATO, arguing that they have replaced uncertainty about NATO’s hostile intentions with certainty. Although Russia still articulates the Arctic as a unique cooperative region, there may be little space left for non-conflictual Russian action when encountering NATO in the Arctic. We highlight the agency and importance of evolving political rhetoric in creating a dangerous situation where lethal conflict can occur between parties who do not seek it, and also suggest that adjustments to patterns of official speech could be a tool of mitigation
Ståle Ulriksen
Ståle Ulriksen is a researcher at the Norwegian Naval College, part of the Norwegian Defence University, with a 20 percent position at NUPI, in Th...
Per Erik Solli
Per Erik Solli is Senior Defence Analyst in NUPIs Research group on security and defence. Solli also has a position as Senior Adviser at Nord Univ...
Webinar: Ocean Governance: Sustainability and security seen from Japan and Europe
This webinar offers views on core ocean governance challenges and reflections on how to strengthen ocean-related cooperation from Japanese and European perspectives.
Navigating High-Profile and Low Availability: Norway and the Emerging US Maritime-Strategic Approach
Summary: Despite a resurgence of Russian naval power, and subsequent increase in US maritime-strategic interest in the Northern Flank and Norway, the grand return of US naval forces to this region is unlikely. Rather, a combination of four separate but interconnected developments form the basis of a new, albeit unarticulated, US maritime-strategic approach to NATO’s Northern Flank. This policy brief looks at these approaches and give the following recommendations: Strengthen the Norwegian defence and naval budgets. Continue and increase European defence integration and cooperation efforts such as Joint Expeditionary Force. European operational planning should reflect the likelihood of limited US naval assistance in the initial phases of a conflict. Work towards European cooperation on maritime out-of-area operations. Explore the potential of replacing Marine Corps presence in Norway with that of the US Army.
Russian reframing: Norway as an outpost for NATO offensives
Moscow increasingly views the ‘Collective West’ as an offensive actor and the High North as terrain for NATO ‘expansion’. Norway figures as an active partner in this endeavour. For Norway, this situation is precarious: to the degree that Norway is seen as an inimical ‘NATO in the North’, Norwegian policies across a range of issue-areas increasingly risk being perceived as actions in an existential Russia–West struggle. This is worrisome because a key pillar of official Norwegian policy towards Russia involves balancing NATO deterrence with reassurance. As the military/non-military distinction becomes blurred in the eyes of Russia this crucial balancing becomes very difficult – the intended ‘reassuring’ signal might not come across.
Ecosystemic politics: Analyzing the consequences of speaking for adjacent nature on the global stage
This article introduces a conceptual framework for analysing and comparing the broader or unintended effects of cooperation anchored in border-crossing ecosystems. The importance of addressing this lacuna in our scholarship on such sub-global cooperation is underscored by research in political geography that has demonstrated how the creation of scale is an important expression of power relations and how interaction with the materiality of different kinds of spaces necessitates distinct political technologies (and thus may have distinct effects). The article introduces three key analytical angles central to policy field studies in international sociology and demonstrates their utility through a case of the Arctic/Arctic Council. These analytical angles – networks (what are the relationships shaping the field?), hierarchies (who leads and how does leadership work?), and norms for political behavior – capture key consequences and dynamics of ecosystemic politics in a concise fashion that lends itself to cross-case comparison. The Arctic case focuses on the changing network positions and roles of non-Arctic actors over time, as an initial exploration of the broader ordering effects of such forms of cooperation. The findings suggest that most non-Arctic actors have experienced a decline in their centrality in Arctic cooperation, even as the Arctic has received intensified global interest and the number of participants in Arctic Council work has increased. Further comparative work along these lines would leave us better equipped to assess whether states speaking for their own immediate environs is better – and if so, in which ways – than seeking common solutions to global challenges.
Transnational Ecosystems Cooperation is Taking off