EUROPEAN UNION POLICY IN THE AREA OF COUNTERING SOFT POWER OF RUSSIA IN THE STATES OF THE EASTERN PARTNERSHIP
https://doi.org/10.18384/2224-0209-2022-2-236
Abstract
Aim. To analyze how the EU perceives the concepts “hybrid threats” and “soft power” in the context of Russian policy towards the Eastern Partnership states, which are a zone of clashing strategic interests of Russia and the EU.
Methodology. The research on the EU’s perception of the so-called hybrid threats and soft power of Russia and the peculiarities of countering them is carried out using analysis of theoretical approach and discourse analysis.
Results of the study show that Russia’s soft power relating to the Eastern Partnership states is viewed as a hybrid threat by the EU.
Research implications. The article explores and clarifies the terms “soft power” and “hybrid threats” applied to Russia, the EU and the Eastern Partnership countries considering the fact that these notions are used more and more frequently in International Relations and are interpreted ambiguously.
About the Author
N. D. Sharoichenko
Lomonosov Moscow State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Postgraduate Student, Department of International Relations and Integration Processes
References
1. Belozerov V. K., Solov’ev A. V. [Hybrid War in the Domestic Political and Scientific Discourse]. In: Vlast’ [The Authority], 2015, vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 5–11.
2. Leonova О. G. [Sharp Power – The New Technology of Influence in a Global World]. In: Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya [World Economy and International Relations], 2019, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 21–28. DOI: 10.20542/0131-2227-2019-63-2-21-28
3. Romanova Т. A., Pavlova Е. B. [Resilience in the European Union and Russia: Essence and Perspectives of the New Concept]. In: Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya [World Economy and International Relations], 2019, vol. 63, no. 6, pp. 102–109. DOI: 10.20542/0131-2227-2019-63-6-102-109
4. Addemer E., Delcour L. With a little help from Russia? The European Union and Visa Liberalization with Post-Soviet States. In: Eurasian Geography and Economics, 2016, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 89–112. DOI: 10.1080/15387216.2016.1178157
5. Bajarűnas E., Kerđanskas V. Hybrid Threats: Analysis of Content, Challenges Posed and Measures to Overcome. In: Lithuanian Annual Strategic Review, 2018, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 62–70.
6. Bjola C., Pamment J. Digital Containment: Revisiting Containment Strategy in the Digital Age. In: Global Affairs, 2016, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 131–142.
7. Carrapico H., Barrinha A. The EU as a Coherent (Cyber) Security Actor? In: Journal of Common Market Studies, 2017, vol. 55, no. 6, pp. 1254–1272. DOI: 10.1111/jcms.12575
8. Casey G. C. America’s Army in an Era of Persistent Conflict. In: Army Magazine, vol. 58, no. 10, pp. 19–28.
9. Delcour L. ‘You Can Lead a Horse to Water, but You Can’t Make It Drink’: the EU’s and Russia’s Intersecting Conditionalities and Domestic Responses in Georgia and Moldova. In: European Politics and Society, 2018, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 490–505.
10. Sadik G., ed. Europe’s Hybrid Threats: What Kinds of Power Does the EU Need in the 21st Century? Newcastle upon Tyne, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2017. 135 p.
11. Giumelli F., Cusumano E., Besana M. From Strategic Communication to Sanctions: The European Union’s Approach to Hybrid Threats. In: Consumano E., Corbe M., eds. A Civil-Military Response to Hybrid Threats. London, Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2018, pp. 145–167. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-60798-6_8
12. Gvosdev N. K. Is Russia Sabotaging Democracy in the West? In: Orbis, 2019, vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 321–333. DOI: 10.1016/j.orbis.2019.05.010
13. Hossovб M. Fake News and Disinformation: Phenomenons of Post-Factual Society. In: Media Literacy and Academic Research, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 27–35.
14. Huseynov V. Soft Power Geopolitics: How Does the Diminishing Utility of Military Power Affect the Russia-West Confrontation over the “Common Neighbourhood”. In: Eastern Journal of European Studies, 2016, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 71–90.
15. Juncos A. E. Resilience as the New EU Foreign Policy Paradigm: A Pragmatist Turn? In: European Security, 2017, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 1–18. DOI: 10.1080/09662839.2016.1247809
16. Kiseleva Y. Russia’s Soft Power Discourse: Identity, Status and the Attraction of Power. In: Politics, 2015, vol. 35, no. 3-4, pp. 316–329. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9256.12100
17. Littlefield S. Citizenship, Identity and Foreign Policy: The Contradictions and Consequences of Russia’s Passport Distribution in the Separatist Regions of Georgia. In: Europe-Asia Studies, 2009, vol. 61, no. 8, pp. 1461–1482.
18. Mälksoo M. Countering Hybrid Warfare as Ontological Security Management: The Emerging Practices of the EU and NATO. In: European Security, 2018, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 374–392.
19. Meier H. E., Mutz M., Glathe J., et al. Politicization of a Contested Mega Event: The 2018 FIFA World Cup on Twitter. In: Communication & Sport, 2019, no. 1-26, pp. 1–20. DOI: 10.1177/2167479519892579
20. Nye J. S. Soft Power. In: Foreign Policy, 1990, vol. 80, pp. 153–171.
21. Nye J. S. Soft Power. The Means to Success in World Politics. New York, Public Affairs, 2004. 191 p.
22. Ördén H. Deferring Substance: EU Policy and the Information Threat. In: Intelligence and National Security, 2019, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 421–437.
23. Rutland P., Kazantsev A. The limits of Russia’s ‘soft power’. In: Journal of Political Power, 2016, no. 9, vol. 3, pp. 395–413. DOI: 10.1080/2158379X.2016.1232287
24. Wagnsson C. Normative Power Europe Caving In? EU under Pressure of Russian Information Warfare. In: Journal of Common Market Studies, 2018, vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 1161–1177. DOI: 10.1111/jcms.12726
25. Wigell M. Hybrid Interference as a Wedge Strategy: A Theory of External Interference in Liberal Democracy. In: International Affairs, 2019, vol. 95, no. 2, pp. 255–275.
Review
Views:
542
Email this article 