Abstract
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.
Highlights
After the Ukraine crisis and the annexation of Crimea, Russia and NATO seem locked in a pattern of escalating tension
We seek to uncover whether the pattern of identification of NATO elsewhere is replicated in Russian statements on NATO in the Arctic region.We investigate whether the established discourse on the Arctic as a “uniquely collaborative space” is reiterated and whether it restrains the securitization of NATO or the level of hostility attached to diverse Western actors in this region
Our empirical analysis in 3.1-3.4 shows that Russian official discourse in the years following the conflict in Ukraine construes NATO as “genetically” set on grabbing ever more geopolitical space while claiming to seek security for all states
Summary
After the Ukraine crisis and the annexation of Crimea, Russia and NATO seem locked in a pattern of escalating tension. The spiral of rising tension in Europe is part of a broader Russia–West interaction pattern which can be theorized as a process of mutual and multifaceted securitization, but we focus on Russia, investigating the changing identifications of NATO in the wider context of self/other representations in Russian official texts. We theorize and empirically investigate the changing pattern in post-Crimea official statements on the strategic adversary and how such general securitization spills over into Russia’s framing of NATO in the Arctic.Thereby we address a neglected aspect in discussions on the emerging Russia-West security dilemma(s): how uncertainty about the intent behind the other party’s military build-up has dissolved and become certainty. We examine Russian statements on NATO and NATO states in the Arctic, to see whether this region can be insulated from the overarching Russia–NATO social dynamic, and to test our empirical expectation that the social construction of strategic certainty puts relations in the Arctic under pressure (3.5).The conclusions sum up the findings of our empirical analysis, linking them to the theoretical debate on how misplaced certainty originates (4)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
