Publicação
The Baltic states’ securitisation discourses and practices in the face of Russia’s assertiveness
| Resumo: | Owing to the Russian Federation’s growing assertiveness in the international arena, amply demonstrated by the annexation of Crimea in March 2014, the three Baltic states – Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia – have been presented as potential targets of the Kremlin’s revisionism. In fact, the presence of significant Russian minorities in those three countries, Russia’s offensive military exercises and the Atlantic Alliance’s vulnerability in its eastern flank has sparked off a debate about the risk of the outbreak of a military conflict between NATO and Moscow. The Baltic sea region’s geopolitical importance thus provides a strong rationale for this study. Applying the theoretical framework of securitisation, in conjunction with the strategies of othering proposed by Diez (2005), this dissertation analyses how Russia has been constructed in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia in terms of security discourse and practices. More concretely, we aim to answer the question whether Moscow’s actions in Ukraine in 2014 have led to a (re)securitisation of Russia in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. We argue that from 1991 to 2004, Russia was predominantly articulated as an existential threat. After achieving their two most important foreign policy desiderata in 2004 – accession to NATO and to the EU – the Baltic states have shifted their focus to the pan-European recognition of their historical subjectivity. From 2004 to 2014, the Baltic-Russian relations were mainly informed by the existence of mutually exclusive narratives, and practices of normative othering, whereby both the Baltic republics and Russia have sought to depict the other as “false Europe”, have become prevalent. Finally, we concluded that, since 2014, processes of securitisation have once again become dominant in the Baltic countries, particularly in the military sphere. However, we found some nuances: while Latvia and Lithuania’s securitisation has been more intense and comprehensive, Estonia has adopted a more balanced approach, stressing its resiliency rather its vulnerabilities. |
|---|---|
| Autores principais: | Correia, Daniel Ferreira |
| Assunto: | Securitisation Othering Baltic states Russia Securitização Estados Bálticos Rússia |
| Ano: | 2018 |
| País: | Portugal |
| Tipo de documento: | dissertação de mestrado |
| Tipo de acesso: | acesso aberto |
| Instituição associada: | Universidade do Minho |
| Idioma: | inglês |
| Origem: | RepositóriUM - Universidade do Minho |
| Resumo: | Owing to the Russian Federation’s growing assertiveness in the international arena, amply demonstrated by the annexation of Crimea in March 2014, the three Baltic states – Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia – have been presented as potential targets of the Kremlin’s revisionism. In fact, the presence of significant Russian minorities in those three countries, Russia’s offensive military exercises and the Atlantic Alliance’s vulnerability in its eastern flank has sparked off a debate about the risk of the outbreak of a military conflict between NATO and Moscow. The Baltic sea region’s geopolitical importance thus provides a strong rationale for this study. Applying the theoretical framework of securitisation, in conjunction with the strategies of othering proposed by Diez (2005), this dissertation analyses how Russia has been constructed in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia in terms of security discourse and practices. More concretely, we aim to answer the question whether Moscow’s actions in Ukraine in 2014 have led to a (re)securitisation of Russia in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. We argue that from 1991 to 2004, Russia was predominantly articulated as an existential threat. After achieving their two most important foreign policy desiderata in 2004 – accession to NATO and to the EU – the Baltic states have shifted their focus to the pan-European recognition of their historical subjectivity. From 2004 to 2014, the Baltic-Russian relations were mainly informed by the existence of mutually exclusive narratives, and practices of normative othering, whereby both the Baltic republics and Russia have sought to depict the other as “false Europe”, have become prevalent. Finally, we concluded that, since 2014, processes of securitisation have once again become dominant in the Baltic countries, particularly in the military sphere. However, we found some nuances: while Latvia and Lithuania’s securitisation has been more intense and comprehensive, Estonia has adopted a more balanced approach, stressing its resiliency rather its vulnerabilities. |
|---|