This paper seeks to explore the mechanisms responsible for the relationship between the EU and Russia. For this purpose, changes of EU foreign policy in the context of the annexation of Crimea by Russia will be elaborated upon. The events on Crimea and the Ukrainian crisis presented a serious challenge to EU foreign policy towards Russia. Especially the relations between former Soviet republics and Russia became a critical factor in reacting to the crisis and the understanding of the actors involved. To approach this problem, the research question of this paper is: How can EU foreign policy assess the character of relations between third partner countries, and hence, how can it adjust its foreign policy tools to approach actors involved sensitively? The paper provides a new perspective on the English School of International Relations as foreign policy analysis tool. It also provides an overview of the most important dates and personalities involved in the Russian annexation of Crimea.
Table of Contents
Introduction
The English School of International Relations
1. Roots and Authors
2. Key Concepts: The three traditions
3. Analytical Focus: International System, International Society and World Society
4. Scientific approach
5. Operationalizing the English School
Ukraine and Russia in Europe.
Society building in EU foreign policy during the Crimean Crisis 2014
1. Ukraine caught between a rock and a hard place
2. Integration into two “Europes”
3. Opposite society building
4. Socialisation with EU
5. EU-Russian antagonism
Conclusion
Research Objectives and Core Themes
This paper aims to explore the mechanisms underlying the relationship between the EU and Russia, specifically examining changes in EU foreign policy in the context of the 2014 Crimean annexation, using the "English School" of International Relations as an analytical framework to assess the divergent foreign policy models of the actors involved.
- Application of the "English School" theory to the Ukraine-Russia-EU conflict.
- Analysis of "International Society" and its role in European foreign relations.
- Examination of the "Two-circle-concept" in relation to security and societal bonds.
- Case study of the Crimean Crisis as a failure of society-level conflict resolution.
- Evaluation of EU foreign policy tools regarding third-party countries.
Excerpt from the Book
3. Opposite society building
Whereas in Eastern Ukraine support for Russophile Viktor Yanukovych and Mykola Azarov prevailed, the opposite was true for most Western parts of the country and pro-EU politicians like Viktor Yushchenko or Yulia Tymoshenko. For instance, this dichotomy is reflected in the results of the presidential elections of 2010. It was during both Tymoshenko’s and Yanukovych’s legislatures that a DCFTA was negotiated to tighten the bonds between the EU and Ukraine. Historically, however, inter-action between Russia and Ukraine had always taken place at least on the system-level, while Ukraine had been off the radar for Western Europe during the Cold War. Of course, Europe’s second largest country had not been a terra incognita to the West. Nevertheless, due to Moscow’s power monopoly in the Eastern bloc, it can hardly be presumed that Ukraine and any Western country had “sufficient contact between them, […] to behave as parts of a whole” (Bull, 1977: 9). In other words, from a Western perspective Ukraine re-entered the stage of IR only after 1991.
From that time on, the EU had been a place of longing for Western socialised Ukrainians for which Eastern European countries like Romania or Bulgaria served as role-models. Just like those countries Ukraine felt entitled not only to be a system-level object of EU resp. Russian foreign politics, but to participate in their conversation about IR on the society-level. In that atmosphere, the EU launched its Eastern Partnership (EaP) as a special form of European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP). This was explicitly done to “answer the aspirations of all Eastern Partnership countries to come closer to the European Union, both politically and economically” (European Commission, 2009: 1). From an EU-perspective, remarkable progress was reached within a year with the negotiations on an Association-Agreement (AA) finalized and talks on a DCFTA continued (European Commission, 2010: 6).
Summary of Chapters
Introduction: Outlines the research question regarding EU foreign policy towards third-party countries and introduces the English School as the theoretical lens.
The English School of International Relations: Defines the core theoretical concepts, including the "three traditions" and the layers of International System, International Society, and World Society.
Ukraine and Russia in Europe.: Contextualizes the historical and political situation between Ukraine, Russia, and the EU, leading up to the crisis.
Society building in EU foreign policy during the Crimean Crisis 2014: Provides the core case study, analyzing the conflict through the lens of societal integration and the failure of diplomatic conflict resolution.
Conclusion: Summarizes the findings and provides policy insights regarding the EU's learning curve in understanding societal structures in its foreign policy.
Keywords
English School, International Society, EU Foreign Policy, Crimean Crisis, Ukraine, Russia, International System, European Integration, Socialisation, Grotian Level, Geostrategy, Foreign Policy Tools, Eastern Partnership, Sovereignty, Diplomacy.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this publication?
This paper examines the mechanisms behind the EU-Russia relationship, using the English School of International Relations to analyze how societal bonds and institutional frameworks influenced foreign policy during the 2014 Crimean Crisis.
What are the central thematic areas?
The core themes include International Relations theory, regional society building in Eastern Europe, the impact of the Eastern Partnership, and the role of historical identities in modern state behavior.
What is the primary research question?
The research asks: How can EU foreign policy assess the character of relations between third-party countries, and how can it adjust its foreign policy tools to approach these actors more sensitively?
Which scientific methodology is utilized?
The author employs the "English School" theory, specifically focusing on the Grotian level of interaction and applying a "Two-circle-concept" to measure societal and political intensity between states.
What topics are covered in the main section?
The main section analyzes the political landscape of Ukraine, the divergent integration efforts by the EU and Russia, the socialisation processes, and the ultimate descent into systemic Hobbesian conflict during the annexation of Crimea.
How would you describe the key terminology?
The work is characterized by terms such as International Society, the "Three Traditions" (Realism, Rationalism, Revolutionism), and the distinction between International Systems and Societies.
How does the author define the "Two-circle-concept"?
It is a conceptual tool where an interior circle represents cultural and social bonds, while an exterior circle represents hard power (economic and military strength); the interaction of these two determines the intensity of international relations.
What conclusion does the author reach regarding EU foreign policy?
The author concludes that the EU is on a learning curve and must better incorporate the understanding of "International Society" needs into its portfolio to avoid future crises.
What role did the Eastern Partnership (EaP) play in the author's analysis?
The EaP is analyzed as a mechanism for society building that was fundamentally misunderstood by Moscow, leading to perceptions of a geostrategic threat that fueled the antagonism.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Magnus Obermann (Autor:in), 2018, Society building in EU foreign policy during the Crimean Crisis of 2014, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/899604
