scholarly journals Looking for the optimum security architecture in Europe: EU and NATO – together or apart?

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 87-104
Author(s):  
J. Yu. Melnikova

The recent years saw the most turbulent period of transformation of the liberal world order since the end of the Cold War. This directly aff ects transatlantic relations, historically serving as a beacon of the Washington’s foreign policy. This notwithstanding, while the U.S. foreign policy priorities have been changing, the members of the transatlantic community have seemed to be drifting further apart, which causes the development of alternative projects to maintain European security. This article aims to compare the current state of aff airs in the transatlantic and the European security systems, relying on the parameters, developed within the framework of the security communities theory, so as to access their feasibility and prospects. The author proceeds from the assumption that the relevant collective identity serves as a key factor for NATO’s and EU’s CFSP success and analyzes its ideational, institutional and practical components. New discourse is perceived as a starting point for transforming the identity of communities through formulating and justifying their main tasks. NATO is currently developing its new narrative while working on the alliance’s new strategic concept, with the EU elaborating on the idea of its “strategic autonomy”, creating a more vibrant and well-grounded story than NATO. However, to be translated into common practices the discourse should be rooted into a well-developed system of institutional communication channels, which is a distinctive feature of NATO, but not the EU. As a result, NATO’s experience in common practices, though not always successful and mutually complementing, creates an inertia within the community, providing for its stability and allowing for timely resolving inner confl icts. In this regard, the EU “strategic autonomy” is a matter of continuous systemic eff ort, rather than that of time.

2021 ◽  
Vol 107 (7) ◽  
pp. 115-124
Author(s):  
Julia Melnikova ◽  

2016–2020 witnessed significant structural changes in the foreign and security policy of the European Union. External factors encouraged the need to strengthen the EU strategic autonomy not only in the form of particular practical moves related to the establishment and development of new institutions, but also as part of an attempt to formulate a new common discourse. The article examines these processes through the security communities theory, traditionally applied to analyze transatlantic dynamics. This helps to both systemically address the recent changes and identify miscalculations and missing elements in framing the European security community. Since the 2020 PESCO Strategic Review to a certain extent summed up the initial phase of development of the central initiative of the whole process, the article analyzes the so far achieved results in setting up the new agenda for the EU and the prospects of translating it into joint practices. The main assumption posits that the key obstacle for enhancing strategic autonomy is the need to use a collective identity - both a tool for developing institutions and a goal of this process. As a result, neither a new collective identity, nor a functional network of institutions have been built, leaving the EU unprepared to bring the idea of strategic autonomy further.


2015 ◽  
Vol 59 (12) ◽  
pp. 30-40
Author(s):  
V. Vasil'ev

The article investigates approaches taken by major political parties and civil society in the FRG toward the Transatlantic partnership. It reveals the tendencies of the prospective promotion of Berlin’s cooperation with Washington; the article also gives a forecast of further interaction between the EU and the USA, indicates the direction of discourse regarding the future Russia–Germany relations model in the context of the Ukrainian crisis and in reference to the increased transatlantic solidarity. Disputes in German socio-political circles on the issue of the FRG’s policy toward the U.S. are emerging all the time, but they have to be considered within a concrete historical and political context. Being of primary significance for all German chancellors, the Trans-Atlantic factor has been shaping itself in a controversial way as to the nation’s public opinion. This has been confirmed by many opinion polls, including the survey on the signing of the EU–U.S. Agreement on the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. Chancellor A. Merkel is playing an important role: she is either ascribed full compliancy with Washington, or is being tentatively shown as a consistent government figure in advancing and upholding of Germany's and the EU's interests. A. Merkel has implemented her peace-seeking drive in undoing the Ukrainian tangle by setting up the “Normandy format” involving the leaders of Germany, France, Russia and Ukraine while having cleared it through with the U.S. President B. Obama well in advance. Despite the increasing criticism of Washington’s policy among some part of Germans, for the majority of German voters, the USA remains a country of implementable hopes, the only power in the world possessing a high education level and the most advanced technologies. Americans, for their part, are confident of the important role that Berlin plays in world politics, particularly in what concerns the maintenance of unity within the EU. Berlin aims at further constructive interaction with the USA in the frame of NATO as well as within other Trans-Atlantic formats. Notwithstanding the steady tendency toward increasing of the Washington policy’s critical perception degree in German society, officially Berlin continues as Washington’s true ally, partner and friend. There is every reason to believe that after the 2017 Bundestag elections, the new (the former) Chancellor will have to face a modernized Trans-Atlantic partnership philosophy, with a paradigm also devised in the spirit of the bloc discipline and commitments to allies. The main concern for Berlin is not to lose its sovereign right of decision-making, including the one that deals with problems of European security and relations with Moscow. Regrettably, Germany is not putting forward any innovative ideas on aligning a new architecture of European security with Russia’s participation. Meanwhile, German scholars and experts are trying to work out a tentative algorithm of a gradual return to the West’s full-fledged dialogue with Russia, which, unfortunately, is qualified as an opponent by many politicians. Predictably, the Crimea issue will remain a long-lasting political irritant in relations between Russia and Germany. Although not every aspect of Berlin’s activation in its foreign policy finds support of the German public, and the outburst of anti-American feeling is obvious, experts believe that the government of the FRG is “merely taking stock of these phenomena and ignores them”. Evident is the gap between the government's line and the feeling of the German parties’ basis – the public. It is noteworthy that the FRG has not yet adopted the Law on Holding General Federal Referendums on key issues of the domestic and foreign policy. There is every indication to assume that the real causes of abandoning the nationwide referendums are the reluctance of the German ruling bureaucracy and even its apprehensions of the negative voting returns on sensitive problems, – such as basic documents and decisions of the EU, the export of German arms, relations with the U.S., etc. The harmony between Berlin’s "Realpolitik" and German public opinion is not yet discernible within the system of Trans-Atlantic axes.


European View ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 238-244
Author(s):  
Eloïse Ryon

Since Brexit and the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a radical transformation of the meaning, use and role of the concept of strategic autonomy within the European project. Whereas its application was originally restricted to defence matters, it is now explicitly mentioned in other sectors, including pharmaceuticals. The COVID-19 pandemic and its political, social and economic consequences have considerably boosted the trend to broaden the concept’s sphere of application. Strategic autonomy has found new life as a key political concept that will help shape the future of the EU. But does the concept really apply to all sectors? To what extent is European strategic autonomy behind the development of the Energy Union? The article attempts to provide an answer to these questions through an analysis of the theoretical and practical development of the concept, focusing particularly on the debate around Nord Stream 2.


2009 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-43
Author(s):  
Tobias Franke

By analyzing the European Security Strategy (ESS) this paper identifies five underlying key tensions which evolve around the questions: what are the threats the EU is facing, how (if at all) will it use force to counter these threats, what precisely are the objectives and interests Brussels seeks to achieve and defend and what capabilities does the EU need for these ends, how will it structure its interaction with the US/NATO, and what is the realm – the geographical scope – of the EU‘s security ambitions? The paper is well aware of the interlinkage of these questions but chooses geography as a starting point of analysis.


Author(s):  
Ian Bache ◽  
Simon Bulmer ◽  
Stephen George ◽  
Owen Parker

This chapter examines the European Union’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). From 1993 to 2009, external political relations formed the second pillar of the EU, on CFSP. Although CFSP was officially an intergovernmental pillar, the European Commission came to play an important role. There were serious attempts to strengthen the security and defence aspects of the CFSP in the face of the threats that faced the EU from instability in its neighbouring territories. However, the EU remains far from having a truly supranational foreign policy and its status as a ‘power’ in international relations is debatable. The chapter first provides a historical background on the CFSP, focusing on the creation of the European Political Co-operation (EPC), before discussing the CFSP and the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP). It concludes with an assessment of EU power and its impact on world politics.


2012 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel C. Thomas ◽  
Ben Tonra

Summary The strengthened Office of the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the new European External Action Service (EEAS) presuppose a set of interests and/or values that the European Union (EU) wishes to pursue on the world stage. But what are those interests and/or values and how does the EU reach agreement on them? Rather than simply ‘cutting and pasting’ from EU treaties and strategy papers, this article identifies seven distinct theoretical models of how the EU and its member states arrive collectively at a definition of their diplomatic objectives. The seven models include intergovernmentalist models of veto threats and log-rolling, normative institutionalist models of cooperative bargaining and entrapment, and constructivist and sociological institutionalist models of elite socialization, Europeanization and collective identity formation. The article identifies the logics of each model and notes their implications for the role of the EU’s new foreign policy institutions.


European View ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 178168582199984
Author(s):  
Włodzimierz Cimoszewicz

Understanding Russia’s foreign policy requires an examination of Putin’s domestic incentives. Nationalism has been cynically instrumentalised to prop up the current regime. By combining it with, among other things, the malicious deployment of modern communication techniques on an unprecedented scale, Russia has been able to project power at home and abroad. However, Putin’s actions have had unintended consequences, and together with the arrival of a new US administration, the EU is presented with an opportunity to devise new solutions—making use of both the carrot and the stick. Re-establishing transatlantic unity and cooperation should not be an end in itself but rather be used as an avenue to implement policies to strengthen European security, some of which would also prove beneficial to Russia.


2021 ◽  
pp. 5-29
Author(s):  
Borys Parakhonsky ◽  
Galina Yavorska

The European Union is in a political and security crisis. The crisis tends to become existential, which undermines the future of the EU as an integration project. The conflict of values between liberal democracy and authoritarianism is becoming an important factor in international security. Negative current trends in the international security environment increase risks for the EU. In its foreign policy the EU does not demonstrate the ability to speak with one voice. It does not support EU’s ambition to be a global international actor. Within the EU, centrifugal tendencies and Euroscepticism appear to be gaining ground. Among the destructive external and internal factors affecting European security, the hybrid threat posed by Moscow’s ambitious plans and aggressive actions is at the forefront. These actions are aimed at undermining democracies, international solidarity and security. Russia is systematically acting to destabilize the EU, using a set of means of destructive influence, trying to undermine European unity both externally and internally. Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, operations in Syria and Libya, interference in domestic processes in the EU, etc., are exacerbating destructive trends in the European security environment. In this con- text, the EU faces the need to increase its resilience, as a tool to deter destructive actions of the Russian Federation and a means to mitigate their effect. The purpose of the article is to analyze the causes and consequences of Russia’s  hybrid influence against the EU, plus to identify the means of Russia’s destructive impact, such as the spread of misinformation, active special operations, energy pressure, etc. The article examines the imperatives of Russian foreign policy, the impact of the value crisis on the European project and its future, as well as obstacles to strategic dialogue between the EU and Russia. Europe returns to searching for its collective European identity, discussing revitalization of the global European narrative. Maintaining a system of liberal democratic values is a key precondition for the future of the EU in order to avoid the risk of disintegration of the European Union. Sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, its national security could be guaranteed only by full-fledged integration into the European political, economic and security space. Europe’s hesitations regarding the European perspective for Ukraine, which arise under pressure from the Kremlin and internal contradictions in the EU, negatively affect the security environment  in Europe.


2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 86-96
Author(s):  
P. A. Smirnov

The article is devoted to the role of the identity factor in the Bulgarian-Macedonian relations. The main controversial issues acute in the period 1991–2021 are the question of the independence of the Macedonian language and the question of the “starting point” of Macedonian history. The foreign policy of the Macedonian republic is investigated in the context of Balkan states` striving for Euro- Atlantic integration. An important part of the study is analyzing the problems of the European Union enlargement to the south-east.As a result of the research, the author comes to several conclusions: Sofia’s opposition to Skopje’s accession to the EU has a solid economic implication; relations with the Bulgarian state have always been of key importance for the Macedonian republic, regardless of plans to join NATO and the EU, since touched upon the key issues of self-determination of the Macedonian people; the rhetoric of the Bulgarian side has a certain tendency to revise the role of Bulgaria in the Second World War, which is categorically unacceptable for the EU member states seeking to withdraw the historical agenda from the negotiation process on the Republic of North Macedonia’s accession to the European Union.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document