Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Full Chapter Ukraine and Beyond Russias Strategic Security Challenge To Europe 1St Edition Janne Haaland Matlary PDF
Full Chapter Ukraine and Beyond Russias Strategic Security Challenge To Europe 1St Edition Janne Haaland Matlary PDF
https://textbookfull.com/product/russia-ukraine-war-1st-edition-
fedorchak/
https://textbookfull.com/product/security-threats-and-public-
perception-digital-russia-and-the-ukraine-crisis-1st-edition-
elizaveta-gaufman-auth/
https://textbookfull.com/product/ukraine-and-russia-from-
civilized-divorce-to-uncivil-war-2nd-edition-danieri/
https://textbookfull.com/product/war-and-memory-in-russia-
ukraine-and-belarus-1st-edition-julie-fedor/
The Russia-Ukraine War: Towards Resilient Fighting
Power 1st Edition Fedorchak
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-russia-ukraine-war-towards-
resilient-fighting-power-1st-edition-fedorchak/
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-russia-ukraine-war-towards-
resilient-fighting-power-1st-edition-viktoriya-fedorchak/
https://textbookfull.com/product/conflict-and-cooperation-in-
cyberspace-the-challenge-to-national-security-1st-edition-
panayotis-a-yannakogeorgos/
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-russia-ukraine-war-
of-2022-post-soviet-politics-1st-edition-agnieszka-kasinska-
metryka-editor/
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-russian-challenge-to-the-
european-security-environment-1st-edition-roger-e-kanet-eds/
UKRAINE
and BEYOND
RUSSIA’S STRATEGIC SECURITY
CHALLENGE TO EUROPE
Edited by
JANNE HAALAND MATLARY
and TORMOD HEIER
Ukraine and Beyond
Janne Haaland Matlary • Tormod Heier
Editors
We would like to thank the Norwegian Command and Staff College and
the University of Oslo for their financial and other support for this book
project. Our work matured in discussions at the Staff College about how
Europe and Russia seem to misunderstand each other at a time when there
is a strong requirement to do the opposite.
We would also like to thank Birgitte Grande and Olav Aalberg at the
Norwegian Defence University College for their help with the cover illus-
tration and the editing of our English.
Possible errors remain our own.
v
CONTENTS
1 Introduction 3
Janne Haaland Matlary and Tormod Heier
vii
viii CONTENTS
Index 289
NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS
ix
x NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS
Tormod Heier is a Lieutenant Colonel in the Norwegian Army and holds a PhD
in Political Science from the University of Oslo. He is a Senior Faculty Advisor at
the Norwegian Command and Staff College at the Norwegian Defence University
in Oslo. He has edited several anthologies on Norwegian security and defence
policy. His latest anthology is Norge og Russland. Sikkerhetspolitiske utfordringer i
nordområdene [Norway and Russia. Security Challenges in the High North] (2015).
Geir Hågen Karlsen is a Lieutenant Colonel in the Norwegian Army and
Director for Strategic Communication at the Norwegian Command and Staff
College. He is Lecturer in Russian Strategic Communication and Information
Operations for NATO fora and academies. He served several years in the former
Soviet Union, and also with Russian airborne troops on operations. He is a gradu-
ate from the Norwegian Defence Command and Staff College and holds a mas-
ters’ degree in Strategic Communication from the Norwegian Business School.
Julian Lindley-French is Professor and Vice President of the Atlantic Treaty
Association, Senior Fellow at the Institute of Statecraft in London, Director of
Europa Analytica in the Netherlands, Distinguished Visiting Research Fellow at
the National Defense University in Washington D.C., as well as a Fellow of the
Canadian Global Affairs Institute. He is a Member of the Strategic Advisory Panel
of the UK Chief of Defence Staff. In 2015 he was made an Honorary Member of
the Association of Anciens of the NATO Defence College in Rome. His blog,
Lindley-French’s Blog Blast (www.lindleyfrench.blogspot.com), has a world-wide
readership. Among his latest books are The Oxford Handbook of War (Oxford
University Press, 2014) and NATO: The Enduring Alliance 2015 (Routledge,
2015).
Øyvind Østerud is professor in political science, University of Oslo. He holds a
Ph.D. from the London School of Economics. He has been guest researcher in the
UK, Australia and France. He was head of the Norwegian Power and Democracy
Study and has been President of the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters.
He has published extensively in comparative politics and international relations.
Nils Terje Lunde is a Lieutenant Colonel in the Royal Norwegian Air Force and
holds a PhD in Theology from the Norwegian School of Theology. He is Head of
the Department of Education, Norwegian Armed Forces Chaplaincy, and has pre-
viously been Chaplain at the Royal Norwegian Air Force Academy, the Norwegian
Command and Staff College, as well as Chaplain to the Norwegian Contingent
Commander, Afghanistan. He is associate editor with the Journal of Military Ethics,
and has co-edited several anthologies on military professional ethics and culture.
Jacob Thomas Staib is a Commander in the Norwegian Navy, and currently Head
of Section for Law and Ethics at the Norwegian Command and Staff College. He
holds a law degree from the University of Oslo, and has served as a military lawyer
in the Norwegian armed forces, in the Ministry of Defence and in NATO. He has
NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS xi
Introduction
Europe has been faced with an unpredictable relationship with Russia since
at least 2014. 2008 was the source of the current problem that happened
when Russia reacted to the European and US plans of including Ukraine
and Georgia in NATO and used military force to stop this, invading the
provinces South-Ossietia and Abkhazia in Georgia and later recognising
them as republics. The Western reaction then was one of discomfort, dis-
belief, and of mostly turning a blind eye.1
In 2014 Russia responded to the political unrest and subsequent change
of government in Ukraine in similar manner. This time, Russia occupied
and annexed the Crimean Peninsula and assisted rebel groups with weap-
ons support in Eastern Ukraine. As of today, Russia seems to have created
a “frozen” conflict which is likely to persist for a long time. The back-
drop to the Ukrainian crisis was similar to the Georgian case: a promise
of closer ties between a liberal Europe and a former Soviet successor state
that strove to find its own identity—in the “contested zone” between
Russia in the East and EU and NATO in the West.2 The Western reaction
this time was one of strong rhetorical outrage, rather mild economic sanc-
tions, and belated military deterrence in NATO member states close to
Russia’s territorial borders.
The present situation is one of stale-mate: European states seem to
prefer to avoid taking charge of the situation while the US de facto leads
in the deterrent aspects. The EU sanctions continue but are contested,
and as of February 2016 Europeans leaders spoke about lifting the sanc-
tions: The French president ‘expected them to be lifted soon, the leader
of Bavaria and the CSU party, Horst Seehofer, made a controversial trip to
visit president Putin in early February, telling the press that he wanted the
sanctions lifted and then closing trade deals between Russia and Bavaria.
Finally, the Italian, Finnish and most East-European state leaders were all
along very reluctant to impose sanctions.
There is a tense and adversarial relationship between Russia and the
West, marked by enmity and unpredictability. NATO and USA are named
as explicit “threats” in the 2016 Russian security strategy, and there is little
political contact between the West and Russia. A verbal escalation took
place early in 2016 when the US announced further military deployment
in Eastern Europe. Defence Secretary Ashton Carter made it clear that
much more spending on deterrence in Europe is necessary, a commenta-
tor wrote that “one now worries more about Russian actions than at any
time since the collapse of the Soviet Union”.3 Russia replied that it would
take commensurate action, i.e. by reinforcing their military defence with
four new Army Divisions along the Central and Western military districts.4
The timing of this book is therefore—unfortunately—a very good one.
There is a dire need for more knowledge of Russian thinking about poli-
tics and the use of force. But as importantly, there is also a need to under-
stand how the West pursues its own political objectives, particularly within
the institutional frameworks of the EU and NATO. This book explores
and analyses the differences in political culture between Russia and the
West. We concentrate on the Russian-European relationship in particu-
lar: how does Europe’s post-modern politics fare in confrontation with
Russia? How do Russian political norms of using force, international legal
interpretations, ethical, and even religious ideas, contrast with those in the
EU and NATO? As the security dilemma seems to increase on both sides
INTRODUCTION 5
early stages of the Cold War onwards this has been an enduring concern for
numerous dependent allies in NATO. This transatlantic concern was well
recognised among Soviet leaders who spent much time figuring out how
limited wars could be launched without risking the use of nuclear weap-
ons. The phrase “political war”, as used by George Kennan in the “Long
Telegram” from 1946, illustrates the timeless logic of limited wars.13
Creating intra-allied ambiguity and uncertainty through Soviet deception,
subversion, and surprise therefore resemble the new buzz-words of today,
such as “hybrid warfare” or “Asymmetric Operations”. Using Norway as
a case, Dyndal and Espenes explore the details in the strategic analysis
accomplished by a small dependent ally that frequently considered itself
isolated on NATO’s Northern Flank. Security concerns today and during
the Cold War are therefore not necessarily very different; “hybrid wars”
can still create scenarios that might be too large for individual NATO
member but too small for NATO as a whole.
In Part II—Strategic Interaction—the post-Crimean challenges to
European security are explored from Russian, British and French perspec-
tives respectively. In Chap. 5, Igor Sutyagin discusses the Russian percep-
tion of being marginalised in international politics, and how the logic of
Realpolitik and the use of force have helped Russia to regain some of
its influence. In particular, Russia’s abandonment of international norms
combined with its political and military assertiveness in Soviet successor
States inevitably raises concerns about the implications for international
security in Eastern Europe. To comprehend the increased tension between
Russia and Europe, the mismatch between Russia’s foreign policy ambi-
tions and its access to the resources needed to carry out Moscow’s policies
is explored. Russia’s gap between its ends (i.e. the ambitions of being a
leading power in world politics) and its means (i.e. a GDP at the size of
Spain in 2016) presents the most compelling contradiction. The gap not
only manifests itself in a more offensive and intimidating posture vis-à-
vis its Western neighbours it is also spelled out in a reinvigorated vari-
ant of the 1945 Yalta Conference between the victorious powers from
World War II. By re-inventing a new “zone of privileged interests”, Russia
can more easily compete on its own terms. Without restrictions posed
by a rule-based framework defined by the West, international relations in
Eastern Europe can more easily be shaped according to Russian interests.
In Chap. 6, Julian Lindley-French presents a British perspective. He
claims that Britain’s shrinking force coupled with a US military over-
INTRODUCTION 11
stakes in Eastern Europe are higher than those of NATO he argues, and
Russia’s register of political instruments is also broader. The way Russia
synchronises them seems to be more coherent than among NATO member
states. NATO’s strength however lies in its core values: liberal and transpar-
ent societies tend to generate more resources and creativity as compared to
more authoritarian ones.
NOTES
1. See the brilliant analysis of this in Ron Asmus’ book A Little War that Shook
the World. Georgia, Russia, and the Future of the West, Palgrave Macmillan,
UK, 2010.
2. Richard Sakwa, Frontline Ukraine. Crisis in the Borderlands (London:
I.B. Tauris, 2015), pp. 26–49.
3. Roland Oliphant, “Cold War returns as US increases Europe military spend-
ing”, The Telegraph, 5 February 2016.
4. See UAWire.org on http://uawire.org/news/russia-and-the-west-a-new-
cold-war.
5. Alexander L. George, Avoiding War. Problems of Crisis Management
(Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1991).
6. See among others Stephen Blank, “Wake Up Europe. Peace Doesn’t
Preserve Itself”, 1 July 2015, http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-
atlanticist/wake-up-europe-peace-doesn-t-preserve-itself; and Matthew
Holehouse, “Migrant crisis: European Council president Tusk warns
Schengen on brink of collapse”, The Telegraph, 13 November, at http://
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11991098/Migrant-
crisis-Donald-Tusk-warns-that-Schengen-is-on-brink-of-collapse-latest-
news.html.
7. See transcripts of former U.S. Secretary on Defence, Robert Gates address
on NATO’s future, at http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/06/10/
transcript-of-defense-secretary-gatess-speech-on-natos-future/.
8. George Kennan, “Policy Planning Staff Memorandum”, Washington, DC,
4 May 1948, http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/johnson/
65ciafounding3.htm.
9. For a brilliant account of the perennial logic of asymmetry in war, see
Beatrice Heuser (2010), The Evolution of Strategy (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2010), and Hew Strachan and Sibylle Scheipers (eds.), The
Changing Character of War (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).
10. Hew Strachan, “The Lost Meaning of Strategy”, Survival, 47(3), Autumn
2005, pp. 33–54.
11. Peter Katzenstein, Cultural Norms and National Security (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1996), 19.
INTRODUCTION 15
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Asmus, Ron. 2010. A Little War that Shook the World. Georgia, Russia, and the
Future of the West. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bech, Ulrich. 2009. Critical Theory of World Risk Society: A Cosmopolitan
Vision. Constellations 16(1): 3–22.
George, Alexander L. 1991. Avoiding War. Problems of Crisis Management.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Heuser, Beatrice. 2010. The Evolution of Strategy. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Katzenstein, Peter. 1996. Cultural Norms and National Security. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Sakwa, Richard. 2015. Frontline Ukraine. Crisis in the Borderlands. London:
I.B. Tauris.
Strachan, Hew. 2005, Autumn. The Lost Meaning of Strategy. Survival 47(3):
33–54.
Strachan, Hew, and Sibylle Scheipers, eds. 2011. The Changing Character of War.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
CHAPTER 2
Christopher Coker
In the 1960s a new term entered the world of literary fiction: magical
realism. It described the works of certain Latin American writers and had
a very specific meaning that made it useful for critics. It was not, as many
imagined, a description of escapist literature. The literature concerned was
always serious, though it tried to convey the reality of one or several world
views that actually exist or have existed. It was a kind of realism, but one
different from the realism that most other cultures experience. It told its
stories from the perspective of people who live in our world but experi-
ence a different reality from the one we call objective. It endeavoured to
show the world through other eyes and in allowing the reader to inhabit
this other reality so thoroughly, the ‘unreal’ element of the story became
frighteningly real long after the novel had been read.
The three main effects of this genre can be summed up as follows. Time
does not march forward in a magical realist world view. The distant past
is present in every moment. Time is a great repetition rather than a pro-
gression. Second the common is transformed into the awesome and the
unreal; subjective experience is more important than the objective. Third,
C. Coker ()
Department of International Relations, London School of Economics,
London, UK
the miraculous is described with a precision that fits it into the ordinari-
ness of human life. When looked at closely the miraculous in fact becomes
mundane. What most works of magical realism have in common is an
implicit rejection of western literary conventions.
It may seem strange to say so, but both Europe and Russia have been
living in a magical realist world for some time. It now threatens to catch
up with both of them. What magical realism actually is in the world of
international politics is simply stated—it is spinning a tale that is believable
only thanks to a suspension of disbelief.
In both cases, magical realism feeds on what philosophers calls a social
imaginary, the concept associated perhaps most with the Canadian aca-
demic Charles Taylor. Taylor employs the term to describe the way people
imagine their social existence, how they fit together with others and what
normative expectations they have of each other.1 A social imaginary, in other
words, involves common stories, narratives and myths which make possible
common practices which in turn, bind people to certain norms of behaviour.
Institutionally, human beings come together with the aim of forming politi-
cal entities with certain ends in view, including the primary end, security.
In other words, a social imaginary involves a common understanding
of how the world works that makes possible common practices. It offers
people a perspective on their own history; it explains where they stand in
space and time, especially their relation with other societies. And every
social imaginary offers a sense of how things work, interwoven with how
they ought to, and from this derives a sense of disappointment when things
go differently from what we expect.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside
the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to
the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying,
displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works
based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The
Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright
status of any work in any country other than the United States.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if
you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project
Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or
other format used in the official version posted on the official
Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at
no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a
means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other
form. Any alternate format must include the full Project
Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.F.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.