European Relations with Russia: Threat Perceptions, Responses, and Strategies in the Wake of the Ukrainian Crisis

Pézard, Stéphanie; Radin, Andrew; Szayna, Thomas S.; Larrabee, F. Stephen

doi:10.7249/rr1579

Cited by 21 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 3 publications

(7 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Analysts from the RAND Corporation, an American think tank, also share the assessment that perceptions of Russia differ significantly and that ‘NATO’s western and southern members do not see as immediate a threat from Russia’ (Pezard et al 2017, 5). However, while these countries do not assess Russia as a substantial risk to their security, on the other pole are those countries in close proximity to Russia, which perceive it as an ‘existential threat’ (Pezard et al 2017, 5).…”

Section: Risk and Threat Assessments In Ceementioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is important to understand the causes of these divergent views of Russia, that is, the factors and drivers that influence perceptions of Russia. According to the RAND analysts, ‘a critical factor influencing European perceptions of the military threat posed by Russia appears to be geographical proximity to Russia’ (Pezard et al 2017, 5).…”

Section: Risk and Threat Assessments In Ceementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Matching risk assessment and capabilities: Challenges to Central and Eastern European member states

Bozhilov¹

2022

European View

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Located on the eastern flank of the EU, the Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries have a specific perception of risks and threats and hence unique views on how to guarantee their security. This is particularly relevant with regard to their attitudes towards Russia. As members of both the EU and NATO, the CEE countries are in favour of stronger EU–NATO cooperation in security and the non-duplication of these organisations’ efforts. Some of the countries see NATO as the key guarantor of their security. For several reasons, CEE countries have serious deficits in their defence capabilities and rely heavily on collective ones.

show abstract

Section: Risk and Threat Assessments In Ceementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Risk and Threat Assessments In Ceementioning

confidence: 99%

Matching risk assessment and capabilities: Challenges to Central and Eastern European member states

Bozhilov¹

2022

European View

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For instance, as abovementioned in Chapter 2, the discussions on a defense plan for the Baltic region and Poland were already underway in September 2014. While Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia along with Poland located in the geographical proximity to Russia, made the case for the NATO forward presence, much more powerful members of the alliance, such as Germany insisted only on maintaining the ability of rapid deployment of the collective forces in case of Russian military aggression (Pezard et al, 2017).…”

Section: Size Of Armed Forcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Military Capabilities of the CSTO Members-States

Davidzon¹

2021

Regional Security Governance in Post-Soviet Eurasia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Following the historical review of the establishment of the regional security governance in post-Soviet Eurasia and review of the political and military components of the regional military alliance, the aim of this chapter is to explore the distribution of military power among the CSTO allies and to examine the military potential of each member in terms of its ability to provide a necessary military assistance in case of aggression against any ally, i.e., Article 4-interventions. Accordingly, this chapter focuses on examination of the military characteristics of the allies. Specifically, we review the objective military capabilities of the CSTO member-states. Such review will allow us to clarify the following questions: What is the military power of each of the allies? What is the potential contribution of each member of CSTO to the collective defense of the alliance? What is the specific mix of military capabilities of the five smaller members (Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan) and the dominant military power, Russia, within the alliance? For the purposes of the examination, we turn to the two following indicators-size of the national armed forces of the CSTO states and their respective military expenditures. We begin the discussion by referring to the rationale behind the selection of these indicators for examining the military power of the states and operationalization thereof. We proceed with the review of the military power of each of the six allies. Accordingly, the chapter will be divided into six sub-chapters, each devoted to

show abstract

“…While during the discussions in Wales Summit in September 2014, Poland and Baltic states, which are geographically closer to Russia, supported the option of NATO's military forward presence, other NATO members such as Germany, fearing to further escalate relations with Moscow, opposed this option and appealed for establishing the ability to rapidly deploy forces in case of Russian military aggression. Finally, after the discussions the allies have chosen the second option and thus agreed on the preferred course of action in the field of collective defense (Pezard et al, 2017).…”

Section: Cooperation Problems and Patterns Of Cooperationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Theoretical Approaches to Patterns of Military Cooperation and Alliances

Davidzon¹

2021

Regional Security Governance in Post-Soviet Eurasia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Why countries establish military alliance? What functions fulfill such security institutions? Are alliances designated to deal with external threats only or could they play additional roles? Which variables influence a military cooperation pattern adopted by allies? How do domestic politics, domestic political regime affect countries preferences regarding the cooperation pattern in military alliance? There are several theoretical approaches, which strive to address these questions. We start the discussion with the review of the existing literature referring to the main theoretical approaches in the field of international relations to the study of military cooperation and alliances: neorealism, constructivism, liberal/democratic peace theory and rational choice theory of institutionalism. As part of the discussion, for the purpose of examination of the cooperation pattern of the post-Soviet Eurasian military alliance, we present our theoretic framework based on the rational choice approach. NeorealismNeorealism characterizes the international system as anarchic (Lundborg, 2019: 233). According to the neorealist approach, states acting at the international arena, assume that "state of nature is a state of war" (Waltz, 1979: 102). Because war could break any time, states should be ready to defend itself. In a self-help system states worry about their survival

show abstract

European Relations with Russia: Threat Perceptions, Responses, and Strategies in the Wake of the Ukrainian Crisis

Cited by 21 publications

References 3 publications

Matching risk assessment and capabilities: Challenges to Central and Eastern European member states

Matching risk assessment and capabilities: Challenges to Central and Eastern European member states

The Military Capabilities of the CSTO Members-States

Theoretical Approaches to Patterns of Military Cooperation and Alliances

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About