The Cooperative Security Dilemma in the Baltic Sea Region

Abstract

This paper examines a clash between modern and post-modern security systems, which may generate cooperative security dilemmas. Cooperative security dilemmas are not state-centric concepts as traditional security dilemmas but apply to international systems. The variations of cooperative security dilemmas are tested in the context of Baltic Sea regional security complex, particularly the integration dilemma in the Nordic countries and the identity dilemma with Russia. The security and defense postures of some regional actors tend to follow modern security understandings that may produce cooperative security dilemmas in the post-modern security environment.

Russia and NATO Strategic Corporation

“…In opposition to early NATO-USSR relations before 1990, a new time of NATO-Russian relations has been set apart by dialogue and cooperation, regardless of numerous disappointments and traps. Holger Mölder brings up, NATO with the another Strategic Concept accepted in the Rome Summit in 1991, and went into another level (Mölder, Holger, 2006).…”

“…"Three primary qualities distinguished by Molder shows that how cooperative security actions give ideal roads to the relationship between Russia and NATO: first, critical thinking to solve the problem, not defensive one against an assailant; second, they organize mutual beliefs over basic standards, and basic standards over mutual identity; third, they rise around the security networks. Eventually, cooperative security actions offer NATO "a custom-fitted arrangement" between stability and quick enlargement (Mölder, Holger, 2006).…”

Does Latvia Matter in Regional Geopolitics?

“…Additionally, there are also several scholars who argue that EU membership is something of a detriment to Latvia. Specific examples include that Latvia and the rest of Eastern Europe are sacrificing their normative values to those of the EU as determined by larger states in Western Europe (Vilson 2015, Makarychev 2015, Bechev 2015, Paenke 2015, Kazharski and Makarychev 2015, that Latvia has far less say in its own foreign and domestic policies than it would otherwise have (Panke 2010, Wivel 2012, Rostoks 2012, Ozoliņš et al 2015, that the largest states in the EU are no different from Russia in that they all look out for their own interests at the expense of smaller states (Molder 2011, Shlapentokh 2012, and that EU membership has not actually benefited Latvia's economy as much or in ways that many hoped (Oja 2015, Vitkus 2015, Ozoliņš et al 2015. More specifically, there is a current argument that EU membership is actually hurting Latvia's economy because of Russian countersanctions (Oja 2015).…”

Russia—EU: Competing logics of region building

“…Thus, Iceland and Norway are members of NATO but not the EU (though Norway participates in the EU's Nordic Battle Group), while Finland and Sweden, vice versa, are members of the EU but not NATO (though they are among the biggest security contributors in NATO-led crisis management operations), and only Denmark participates in both institutions without, however, having joined the eurozone and the Common Security and Defense Policy. 21 In the meantime, Nordic regionalism has its own external projection, as exemplified by the Northern Dimension initiated by Finland. Since 2006, the "old" Northern Dimension was reshaped into a multilateral institution with participation of the EU, Russia, Norway, and Iceland.…”