NATO Enlargement Research Articles

Kievan Rus: A Tumultuous Journey Ended With War

Russia’s “Special Military Operation” against Ukraine on 24 February 2022 can be counted as the biggest ever war in Europe since World War II. The rationale of the operation, as Russian President Vladimir Putin asserts, is that Russia even could not stay safe, prosper and survive with a NATO-leaning Ukraine. Nevertheless, the present-day war is a culmination of several factors which have set the stage for a more bitter outcome between Russia and Ukraine soon. The paper attempts at analysing how the present-day Russia-Ukraine war is a culmination of conflicting claims and interests of the two countries-Russia and Ukraine, starting from Kievan Rus, and how the west dragged Moscow into a deadly war with Kyiv. In the entire gamut of analysis, Ukraine’s intertwined history and the Russian claims, NATO expansion, resurgent Russia, and oscillating Ukrainian domestic politics hinged on east-west leanings, all together have been taken into account to unfold the current crisis in a wider spectrum.

러시아-우크라이나 전쟁과 나토: 쟁점과 여론

With the initiation of the Russia-Ukraine war, Putin presented the causes of the war as follows: 1) NATO expansion, 2) special relations between Russia-Ukraine, 3) protection of Russian residents in Donbas and denazification. Focusing on the first NATO expansion factor, this article comprehensively examines Putin’s arguments and their validity in the context of international politics, history, and social culture. In addtion, it analyzes the related perceptions of Russians and Ukrainians based on various polls. The result of the study reveals that Russia, which had expected to become a member of the European security community after the end of the Cold War, took a sincere attitude toward building constructive relations with NATO, even accepting NATO expansions. Putin

OBSERVATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS ON THE SECURITY CONCERNS DURING THE COLD WAR

After World War II (1939-1945) a bipolar world order emerged under the leaderships of the United States and the Soviet Union. The postwar period was later called as the Cold War Era that witnessed a great tension between the Western and Eastern blocs. Both sides abstained from a direct war and generally competed in such fields as military, political, economic, cultural, and so on. Although avoiding from military interventions was the main principle, the continuous hostility between two nuclear superpowers inevitably forced them to consider military options. In this point, security question became a vital subject between the United States and the Soviet Union, and deeply influenced the shaping of characteristics of two powers’ relations. It was foreseen that the security concerns based on nuclear threat would come to an end with the collapse of the Soviet Union and with the end of the Cold War. However, the expansion of NATO to the Eastern Europe and Baltic region, and possibility of new member’s admission to NATO, including Ukraine, in one hand, Russia’s efforts to be a superpower in the world politics, on the other hand, revealed that the security concerns have not completely disappeared with the end of the Cold War. Thus, revisiting some discussions on the security concerns during the Cold War, and bringing them to the attention of academic world would be stimulating. This article will focus on some fundamental discussions on the security concerns during the Cold War. Firstly, the formation of the US national security understanding, and the role of National Security Council Report 68 (NSC-68) in shaping of the US security concept during the Cold War will be explained. Secondly, the role of nuclear deterrence in the establishment of national security concept will be discussed. Finally, the concept of ‘security dilemma’ and the opinions of Robert Jervis on security dilemma will be evaluated.

Russia vs. Ukraine War: India's stance

On February 24, Russian troops came into Ukraine from Belarus in the north, Crimea in the south, and the east. Multiple lines of attack suggested that the Russian military wanted to quickly take the capital, Kyiv, overthrow the democratically elected government, and take over as much as the eastern two-thirds of Ukraine. Since the war started on February 24, Russia has been wrong about four things: that the Ukrainian government would fall and Russian forces would quickly take Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities; that the European Union would struggle to show resolve and respond to this aggression; that the "Western world" would react in a split and uncertain way; and that the rest of the world would not condemn Russia's invasion. Russia has been building up its military along its border with Ukraine, which wants to join NATO. Russia has said that its deployment of troops is a response to the steady expansion of NATO to the east. Russia says that it is doing these things to protect its own security. The stance that India has taken on the conflict between Russia and Ukraine is being applauded everywhere therefore, the study highlighted and analysed the India’s stand on Russia – Ukraine war by adopting descriptive cum analytical method to reach on conclusion also the study utilised extensively thematic analytical tool MAXQDA for qualitative investigation to explain and analyse the India’s stand on Russia – Ukraine war.

Russia vs. Ukraine War: India's stance

On February 24, Russian troops came into Ukraine from Belarus in the north, Crimea in the south, and the east. Multiple lines of attack suggested that the Russian military wanted to quickly take the capital, Kyiv, overthrow the democratically elected government, and take over as much as the eastern two-thirds of Ukraine. Since the war started on February 24, Russia has been wrong about four things: that the Ukrainian government would fall and Russian forces would quickly take Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities; that the European Union would struggle to show resolve and respond to this aggression; that the "Western world" would react in a split and uncertain way; and that the rest of the world would not condemn Russia's invasion. Russia has been building up its military along its border with Ukraine, which wants to join NATO. Russia has said that its deployment of troops is a response to the steady expansion of NATO to the east. Russia says that it is doing these things to protect its own security. The stance that India has taken on the conflict between Russia and Ukraine is being applauded everywhere therefore, the study highlighted and analysed the India’s stand on Russia – Ukraine war by adopting descriptive cum analytical method to reach on conclusion also the study utilised extensively thematic analytical tool MAXQDA for qualitative investigation to explain and analyse the India’s stand on Russia – Ukraine war.

The Foreign Policy of Donald Trump’s Administration in Transcaucasia

Transcaucasia is a politically complicated region. Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia have different foreign policy vectors, strategies, and relations with the United States. This paper provides a detailed analysis of the main political processes in Transcaucasia during the presidency of Donald Trump. The research is focused primarily on the development of bilateral relations of the United States with the countries of Transcaucasia in three directions: military cooperation, economic relations, and promotion of democracy. We examine the role and the interests of the United States in Transcaucasia and the priorities of the foreign policy of Trump’s administration there. The role of Russia is significant in the region as well, especially after the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war between Armenia and Azerbaijan. The Russian Federation is against losing its dominance there and the expansion of NATO in Transcaucasia. It tries to deepen the authoritarian regime in the region and keep it under its control. The research findings show clearly the importance of cooperation and partnership between this complicated region and the United States, which can be a much better guarantor of stability, development, and democratic progress in Transcaucasia.

What Putin Fights For

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has reignited debate over the role of NATO expansion in producing the current crisis. Robert Person and Michael McFaul dismiss Russian President Vladimir Putin’s NATO concerns as a ‘fiction’, arguing that it was actually the expansion of democracy that threatened his autocratic regime. This argument draws a false distinction between trends Russians view as deeply entwined. Democracy and NATO expansion were not separate issues for Putin and the Russian elite, but mutually reinforcing elements of a concerted Western effort to contain Russia’s ambitions as a great power. Putin’s distaste for democracy does not overshadow but rather reinforces his objections to NATO. Because NATO expansion played an important role in producing the invasion, halting that expansion might have persuaded Putin to pursue his goals through less violent means.

Russia's evolving military strategy in response to NATO expansion: Continuity and changes

This article analyses the changes and continuities in the Russian Military Strategy in response to NATO’s expansionist policies. The methodology used is inter-disciplinary in nature as the discourse is based and conceptualised in the historical context with social insights into the contemporary development of events. The paper is divided into two sections: the first concerns NATO’s expansion, both during and after the cold war period; and the second examines the proposed Russian Military Strategy in response to NATO's increasing eastward expansion. It is concluded that Russia’s national security concepts and evolving expressions of military doctrine closely follow the process of NATO's expansion. The nature of forward deployment, defence concept and military strategy that NATO adopts are decisive in formulating and influencing not only Kremlin's perception but also its reaction, especially in the military field to alliance enlargement.

Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine, the Driving Forces, and Implications for Africa

The study interrogates the issues surrounding Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the ongoing war between the two Eastern European countries. It examines the remote and immediate causes of the invasion as well as the position of leading and other members of the UN Security Council and other world leaders on the aggression. The study also analysed Russia’s justification of the invasion based on the fact that Russia’s security is being threatened by the continued expansion of NATO to Eastern Europe, against which Moscow claims it is a red line that cannot be tolerated. A brief background of the crisis that led to the invasion/war was examined, as well as the internal and external factors that triggered the invasion. Finally, the paper examined the implications of Russia’s invasion of Africa. The study relied on documentary evidence sourced mainly from the internet and applied the realist theory in analysing the issues. The study found that though NATO’s expansion eastwards and Ukraine’s intention to join the security alliance were the immediate triggers for the invasion, several other remote factors contributed to the invasion. The study also found that though Africa is miles away from the theatre of conflict, it is being affected in several ways by the conflict. Amongst others, the paper recommends that Africa should maintain its non-aligned posture in the conflict, and should seek closer ties within the continent and with non-European partners to cushion the effects of the war.

OBSERVATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS ON THE SECURITY CONCERNS DURING THE COLD WAR

After World War II (1939-1945) a bipolar world order emerged under the leaderships of the United States and the Soviet Union. The postwar period was later called as the Cold War Era that witnessed a great tension between the Western and Eastern blocs. Both sides abstained from a direct war and generally competed in such fields as military, political, economic, cultural, and so on. Although avoiding from military interventions was the main principle, the continuous hostility between two nuclear superpowers inevitably forced them to consider military options. In this point, security question became a vital subject between the United States and the Soviet Union, and deeply influenced the shaping of characteristics of two powers’ relations. It was foreseen that the security concerns based on nuclear threat would come to an end with the collapse of the Soviet Union and with the end of the Cold War. However, the expansion of NATO to the Eastern Europe and Baltic region, and possibility of new member’s admission to NATO, including Ukraine, in one hand, Russia’s efforts to be a superpower in the world politics, on the other hand, revealed that the security concerns have not completely disappeared with the end of the Cold War. Thus, revisiting some discussions on the security concerns during the Cold War, and bringing them to the attention of academic world would be stimulating. This article will focus on some fundamental discussions on the security concerns during the Cold War. Firstly, the formation of the US national security understanding, and the role of National Security Council Report 68 (NSC-68) in shaping of the US security concept during the Cold War will be explained. Secondly, the role of nuclear deterrence in the establishment of national security concept will be discussed. Finally, the concept of ‘security dilemma’ and the opinions of Robert Jervis on security dilemma will be evaluated.

Diplomacy of force and special military operation of the Russian Armed Forces in Ukraine: general and special

Russia's conduct of a special military operation in Ukraine has brought back to the agenda a long-known discussion among experts in the fi eld of foreign policy and diplomacy about the role of force in international relations. Claims about the possibility of using force in our time arose as a result of the appearance of nuclear weapons. Today, US politicians continue to assert that war will remain an acceptable instrument of national policy of states at the level of international subsystems, that is, in various regions. In their opinion, the power of a major power is capable of exerting an effective psychological influence on how often such conflicts will arise and what their outcome will be. At one time, Russia clearly outlined the "red line" in connection with attempts to integrate Ukraine into NATO and repeatedly and unequivocally warned that it would take active actions in response to this, i. e. use "hard force". In response to this, the United States and NATO have been fueling anti-Russian sentiments in Ukraine for a long time, considering it as a tool to deter Moscow and turning it into antiRussia. One of the components of this policy was the reckless expansion of NATO to the east, despite the obligations of non-expansion of the alliance. All this forced Russia to announce the conduct of a special military operation in Ukraine, the purpose of which is the de–Nazification and demilitarization of the neighboring state.

FEASIBLE SOLUTIONS TO THE BELLIGERENT CONFLICT BETWEEN RUSSIA AND UKRAINE

The conflict between Russia and Ukraine has thrown the world into disarray. After the devastating pandemic disaster, it's the most serious concern that has a direct or indirect impact on all of us. People are looking for practical and permanent solutions to what we have at-tempted to estimate by analyzing all of the incidents and speaking with local folks on the phone. As noted previously, we considered NATO enlargement as the cause to start this battle. We concentrated on humanitarian aid and social awareness in this area. Essentially, we attempted to discover some long-term solutions to these problems by reducing people's poverty and inequity, as well as analyzing their current basic necessities and determining how to reconstruct collapsed palaces and repatriate the immigrated people. The economy's decline was also a source of concern for us, and we sought to determine how to reverse it. In this article, the following issues in relation to various sources of information are discussed in an elegant way.

Cross-border spaces in the perception of threats to Russia's National Security

Changes in international relations and perceptions of national security are forcing individual States to expand the contours of their own security borders. It is not uncommon for these contours to go far beyond their own borders. The purpose of the study is to determine the nature of the perception of the transformation of cross-border spaces in the system of threats to Russia's national security. The main materials of the study were socio-political discourse, in particular individual speeches of the President of Russia, the national security strategy and other normative and doctrinal documents in the field of ensuring the security of the Russian Federation. The studied narratives and comparison of statements and reactions to individual regional transformations, compared with doctrinal documents in the field of national security, allowed us to identify trigger points. In particular, in comparison of the political changes in Afghanistan, Finland and Ukraine, it was revealed that it is the value transformation at the current moment in the vision of the Russian elite that is of the greatest concern, both regionally and politically and socially. The basis of the research methodology is a systematic approach, content analysis, and a comparative approach, which made it possible to identify the dominants in the current political discourse and determine the reason for the perception of the transformation of cross-border spaces by the Russian elite in a certain way. As a result, it is determined that the change of the value paradigm is perceived as something significantly more dangerous than a military threat, as well as the expansion of NATO to the east, which is by no means perceived as an equivalent threat. In addition, the Russian elite perceives the current international system as something unfair, due to the capabilities of Western states to influence areas lying near the borders of Russia. While Russia itself does not have the opportunity to broadcast its ideas and values on territories far from its borders. Changes in the value orientation of cross-border areas lying in the border of Russia are perceived by the elite at the moment as the main national threat to the country's security.

Anthropologists at war?

This guest editorial addresses issues to do with the Russian invasion of Ukraine. An initial statement by one professional association prevaricates on the cause of the war by blaming NATO expansion. Here the story is told of why statements need to be unambiguous in their condemnation of Russia, which is not to say that this makes for ‘NATO anthropologists’ as some have claimed on social media.

The Golden Billion: Russia, COVID, Murderous Global Elites.

SUMMARYThis essay tells the story of the hot, brooding summer that preceded Russia’s “special military operation” attack on Ukraine: an attack that could not legally be called a war and that many people in Russia supported even while they neither trusted the media nor cared to talk about politics. Rallying support for this undeclared war, Russian state rhetoric drew on images of WWII fascism, NATO expansion, and morally rotten transnational elites: themes resonant with long‐standing feelings of hurt national pride and personal abandonment in the face of spiraling social stratification. To many of its supporters, “the war seemed a relief after many years of stagnation,” wrote the Moscow‐based journalist Shura Burtin (2022). “Like a fire in prison: at least there’ll be some commotion.” This essay describes a high point of this pregnant stagnation. Written in August 2021, it draws on over a decade of ethnographic fieldwork in North‐Western Russia to examine the idea that a “Golden Billion” of the world’s most powerful people governs to exterminate the rest of us—at a moment when this idea seemed eminently reasonable.

NATO Facing China: Responses and Adaptations

This article explores and assesses NATO’s various options for dealing with Chinese power. Firstly, in terms of military approaches, we argue that NATO is unlikely to play a substantial role in US-led efforts to balance China in the Indo-Pacific region, or to designate China as a ‘threat’ in the North Atlantic area. Given that a clear-cut geographic division of labour between the United States and European partners would weaken the Alliance’s cohesion, NATO should instead focus on better integrating the ‘China factor’ into its military planning, in anticipation of the knock-on effects that a crisis in Asia could have on the European theatre. Secondly, in terms of the political approaches, although a formal expansion of NATO’s competencies is unlikely, stronger coordination with Indo-Pacific actors and with the European Commission could help overcome many of the Alliance’s geographic and functional limitations in dealing with China.

What Putin Fears Most

Russian president Vladimir Putin wants you to believe that NATO is responsible for his February 24 invasion of Ukraine—that rounds of NATO enlargement made Russia insecure, forcing Putin to lash out. This argument has two key flaws. First, NATO has been a variable and not a constant source of tension between Russia and the West. Moscow has in the past acknowledged Ukraine's right to join NATO; the Kremlin's complaints about the alliance spike in a clear pattern after democratic breakthroughs in the post-Soviet space. This highlights a second flaw: Since Putin fears democracy and the threat that it poses to his regime, and not expanded NATO membership, taking the latter off the table will not quell his insecurity. His declared goal of the invasion, the "denazification" of Ukraine, is a code for his real aim: antidemocratic regime change.

Ukraine: The Shock of Recognition

Like the international struggle against Hitler-led fascism in the last century, the broad and cohesive mobilisation against Vladimir Putin’s Russia following his brutal invasion of Ukraine is based not only on realpolitik but also on a visceral recognition of a grave threat to the values and institutions of Western civilisation. While NATO enlargement inevitably discomfited Russian leaders, it was largely driven by the demands of former Soviet republics or bloc countries that sensibly and presciently feared Russian revanchism. In any case, Putin’s primary concern about Ukraine appears to have been not Kyiv’s NATO aspirations so much as its increasing Western orientation and democratic development. War has come to Europe mainly because Putin decided that an independent Ukraine was intolerable. A stable and secure neutrality along Finnish or Austrian lines might be viable only because Ukraine has shown its determination and capability to defend itself.

The sword of Damocles in global stability

The subject of this paper is the causes and consequences of the Ukrainian crisis. The armed conflict between the two Slavic peoples is a tragic epilogue of decades of processes in the relations between Russia and the United States. NATO's expansion to the east, despite the promises made, has permanently exacerbated the conflict between the two leading military powers. The aim of this research is to discover the essence and cause of the conflict that led to armed actions as well as the theoretical foundation of current geopolitical processes. The concepts of Western geopoliticians, contained in the works of Mackinder and Spikeman, offer an explanation of the ambitions and strategic goals of Anglo-Saxon geopolitics that have not changed since the 19th century. The basic hypothesis is that the long-term economic goals of the dominant geopolitical forces lie behind the Ukrainian crisis. The evolution of Ukraine's geopolitical position, which has been torn between East and West since independence, has been followed chronologically. The permanent deterioration of relations with Russia will eventually lead to an armed conflict. The consequences will be felt most by Ukraine but also by Russia, on which unprecedented sanctions have been imposed. However, there will also be consequences for the European Union, which is deprived of Russian energy and raw materials, world stability, and the overall world economy, which is significantly lowering growth rates. The solution to the deepest political, economic, and military crisis since the Second World War will be reached when the United States and Russia agree on it, with or without the participation of Ukraine.

France’s security strategy for the 21st century

After the end of the Cold War, France issued the first document defining its national security strategy only in 1994. In the following years, despite its involvement in NATO and European Union enlargement, France did not publish any documents defining its security strategy. Only when Europe and the world found themselves in the process of reconfiguration of the international order at the end of the first decade of the 21st century did France begin to issue extensive documents defining its defense and national security strategy. As international terrorism became the greatest threat to France, the first document published in 2006 dealt with its position regarding this global phenomenon. Subsequently, White Papers on Defense and National Security were published in 2008 and 2013, followed by the Strategic Review of Defense and National Security in 2017. These documents define threats and challenges to the security of France, as well as its goals, and means and methods for strengthening it. They make up a broad understanding of the security of the state, society and the individuals, and international security. They show the programming of France as a European and world power. The author draws attention to some similarities and differences with the national security strategy of the Russian Federation. The analysis is conducted using the neorealist approach.