Advertisement

The West’s Dominance and Expansion and Russia’s Response

  • Ryszard ZiębaEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Global Power Shift book series (GLOBAL)

Abstract

The author claims that the greatest problems in the Euro-Atlantic security system arose with the West’s continued policy of dominance and expansion eastwards. The first tensions and diverting interests in relations with Russia were due to the West’s promotion of democracy in the Western Balkans and in the post-Soviet space, including the so-called ‘color revolutions’. Russia viewed this policy as a cover for the strategic interests of the USA, NATO and the EU and as interference in East-European countries’ internal affairs. Russia had been opposed to NATO expansion to the east since the previous decade, but had no means to prevent it during the first two post-Cold War rounds of NATO enlargement in 1999 and 2004. When, in 2008, NATO announced plans to include Ukraine and Georgia in the alliance, however, Russia was strong enough to oppose it and demonstrated its military power during the Georgian-Russian War of 2008, and then by intervening in Ukraine in 2014. As NATO reacted to this by reinforcing its eastern flank, Europe became the scene of a dangerous confrontation reminiscent of Cold War days.

References

  1. 13 najważniejszych decyzji szczytu NATO w Warszawie, TVN24, July 9, 2016.Google Scholar
  2. Active Engagement, Modern Defence: Strategic Concept for the Defence and Security of the Members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Adopted by Heads of States and Government at the NATO Summit in Lisbon November 10–20, 2010, NATO, Brussels.Google Scholar
  3. Alexeev, D. (2004). NATO enlargement: A Russian outlook. Russian Series, No. 04/33. Conflict Studies Research Centre.Google Scholar
  4. Ambrosio, T. (2009). Authoritarian backlash: Russian resistance to democratization in the former Soviet Union. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  5. Becker, M. E., Cohen, M. S., Kushi, S., & McManus, I. P. (2016). Reviving the Russian empire: The Crimean intervention through a neoclassical realist lens. European Security, 25(1), 112–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beichelt, T. (2012). The research field of democracy promotion. Living reviews in democracy (Vol. 2, pp. 4–12). Center for Comparative and International Studies, ETH Zurich and University of Zurich.Google Scholar
  7. Belarus Democracy and Human Rights Act of 2011, 112 Congress, 1st Session, H.R.515. http://chrissmith.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hr_515_final_text_on_passage.pdf. Accessed January 27, 2018.
  8. Belarus Democracy Reauthorization Act of 2006, https://belarusdigest.com/story/full-text-of-belarus-democracy-reauthorization-act-of-2006/. Accessed January 27, 2018.
  9. Börzel, T. A., & Risse, T. (2009). Venus approaching Mars? The European Union as an emerging civilian world power. Berlin working paper on European integration. Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin.Google Scholar
  10. Bryc, A. (2004). Cele polityki zagranicznej Federacji Rosji. Toruń: Adam Marszałek.Google Scholar
  11. Bush, G. W. (2010). Decision points. New York: Crown Publishers.Google Scholar
  12. Chicago Summit Declaration Issued by the Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Chicago on 20 May 2012, NATO Press Release (2012) 062, May 20, 2012.Google Scholar
  13. Chivvis, C. S. (2017, June 30). Sweden, Finland, and NATO (The German Marshall Fund), Policy Brief.Google Scholar
  14. Comment by the Information and Press Department on the vote in Skupstina on Montenegro’s accession to NATO, April 28, 2017. http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/2740071. Accessed January 27, 2018.
  15. Common Strategy of the European Union of 4 June 1999 on Russia (1999/4147/CFSP). Official Journal of the European Communities, L 157, 24.6.1999.Google Scholar
  16. Czachor, R. (2011). Polityka zagraniczna Republiki Białoruś w latach 1991–2011. Studium politologiczne. Polkowice: Wydawnictwo DWSPiT.Google Scholar
  17. Dahrendorf, R. (1990). Reflections on the revolutions in Europe: In a letter intended to have been sent to a gentleman in Warsaw. New York: Times Books.Google Scholar
  18. de Wilde, T., & Spetschinsky, L. (Eds.). (2000). Les relations entre l’Union européenne et la Fédération de Russie. Louvain-la-Neuve: Insitute d’études européennes.Google Scholar
  19. Deni, J. R. (2017). NATO and article 5: The transatlantic alliance and the twenty-first-century challenges of collective defense. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  20. Domisse, A. (2016). Enlargement to the North? Sweden, Finland and NATO. Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, Facts & Findings, 212.Google Scholar
  21. Drygiel-Bielińska, M. (2016). Unia Europejska w procesie budowania pokoju w regionie Bałkanów Zachodnich. Problemy adaptacji. Warsaw: ASPRA.Google Scholar
  22. Eellend, J. (2016, June 13). Friends, but not allies: Finland, Sweden, and NATO in the Baltic sea. Baltic Bulletin. The Foreign Policy Research Institute. https://www.fpri.org/article/2016/06/friends-not-allies-finland-sweden-nato-baltic-sea/. Accessed January 27, 2018.
  23. Eriksson, A. (2016, May 2). Russia wary as Nordic states mull closer Nato ties. EU Observer.Google Scholar
  24. European Council in Copenhagen, Presidency Conclusions, June 21–22, 1993, SN 180/1/93 REV 1.Google Scholar
  25. Forsberg, T. (2004). The EU-Russia security partnership: Why the opportunity was missed. European Foreign Affairs Review, 9(2), 247–267.Google Scholar
  26. Fryc, M. (2014). “Doktryna Komorowskiego”—Próba scharakteryzowania. Idea, zakres, priorytety, realizacja. Bezpieczeństwo Narodowe, II(30), 41–72.Google Scholar
  27. Fukuyama, F. (1992). The end of history and the last man. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  28. German, T. (2017). NATO and the enlargement debate: Enhancing Euro-Atlantic security or inciting confrontation? International Affairs, 93(2), 291–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hagel, C. (2013, March 15). Missile defense announcement. U.S. Department of Defense. http://archive.defense.gov/Speeches/Speech.aspx?SpeechID=1759. Accessed January 27, 2018.
  30. Hillion, C. (1998). Partnership and cooperation agreements between the EU and the new independent states of the Ex-Soviet Union. European Foreign Affairs Review, 3(3), 399–420.Google Scholar
  31. Jahn, E. (2012). International politics, political issues under debate (Vol. 1). Wiesbaden: Gabler Verlag/Springer.Google Scholar
  32. Karagiannis, E. (2013). The 2008 Russian-Georgian war via the lens of offensive realism. European Security, 22(1), 74–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kotzian, P., Knodt, M., & Urdze, S. (2011). Instruments of the EU’s external democracy promotion. Journal of Common Market Studies, 49(5), 995–1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kuzio, T. (2006). The orange revolution at a crossroads. Demokratizatsiya, 14(4), 477–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lété, B., & Basagni, L. (2016, June 29), NATO’s enhanced opportunities partners. The German Marshal found of the United States. Blog. http://www.gmfus.org/blog/2016/06/29/natos-enhanced-opportunities-partners. Accessed January 27, 2018.
  36. Moniz Bandeira, L. A. (2015). The second cold war: Geopolitics and strategic dimension of the USA. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  37. Myrjord, A. (2003). Governance beyond the Union: EU boundaries in the barents euro-arctic region. European Foreign Affairs Review, 8(2), 239–257.Google Scholar
  38. O’Hanlon, M. (2017). NATO’s limits: A new security architecture for Eastern Europe. Survival, 59(5), 7–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ojanen, H. (2000). The EU and its ‘Northern Dimension’: An actor in search of a policy, or a policy in search of an actor? European Foreign Affairs Review, 5(3), 359–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pedrotty, D. J. (2016). Prospects for Finland and Sweden to pursue closer defense cooperation with NATO (Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive, Thesis and Dissertations). Monterey, California: Naval Postgraduate School.Google Scholar
  41. Press Availability at the NATO Ministerial, Secretary Condoleezza Rice, Forum Palace, Vilnius, Lithuania, April 21, 2005, US Department of State, Archive, https://2001-2009.state.gov/secretary/rm/2005/45017.htm. Accessed January 27, 2018.
  42. Reset tarczy. Kim dał pretekst do uspokojenia Rosji?, TVN24, 16 March 2013.Google Scholar
  43. Rice calls for change in Belarus, BBC News, April 21, 2005.Google Scholar
  44. Rice: Belarus is ‘dictatorship’. CNN.com, April 20, 2005.Google Scholar
  45. Riecker, P., & Lundby Gjerde, K. (2016). The EU, Russia and the potential for dialogue—Different readings of the crisis in Ukraine. European Security, 25(3), 304–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Russia condemns Nato’s expansion, BBC News, 1 April 2004.Google Scholar
  47. Sakwa, R. (2015). Frontline Ukraine: Crisis in the Borderlands. London: I.B. Tauris.Google Scholar
  48. Schmidt-Feltzmann, A. (2016). The breakdown of the EU’s strategic partnership with Russia: From strategic patience towards strategic failure. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 29(1), 99–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sharp, G. (2012). From dictatorship to democracy: A conceptual framework for liberation. London: Serpent’s Tail.Google Scholar
  50. Shlapak, D. A., & Johnson, M. (2016). Reinforcing deterrence on NATO’s Eastern flank: Wargaming the defense of the baltics. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. SIPRI Military expenditure data: 1949–2016. https://www.sipri.org/databases/milex. Accessed on January 27, 2018.
  52. Sojusz z przyszłością, (Prezydent Bronisław Komorowski dla “Gazety”), Gazeta Wyborcza, November 18, 2010.Google Scholar
  53. Stent, A. E. (2014). The limits of partnership: U.S.—Russian relations in the twenty-first century. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Surkov, V. (2006, November 20). Natsionalizatsia Budushchego. Ekspert online 43. http://expert.ru/expert/2006/43/nacionalizaciya_buduschego/. Accessed January 27, 2018.
  55. The Belarus Democracy Act of 2004, Public Law 108-347–October 20, 2004. http://chrissmith.house.gov/uploadedfiles/pl108347.pdf. Accessed January 27, 2018.
  56. The Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation signed in Paris 27 May 1997.Google Scholar
  57. The prague summit and NATO’s transformation: A reader’s guide (2003). Brussels: NATO.Google Scholar
  58. Tsygankov, A. P. (2013). Russia’s foreign policy: Change and continuity in national identity. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  59. Wales Summit Declaration Issued by the Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Wales. NATO Press Release (2014) 120, September 5, 2014.Google Scholar
  60. Warsaw Summit Communiqué Issued by the Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Warsaw July 8–9, 2016. NATO Press Release (2016) 100, July 9, 2016.Google Scholar
  61. Wilson, A. (2005). Ukraine’s orange revolution. New Haven–London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Wilson, J. L. (2010). The legacy of the color revolutions for Russian politics and foreign policy. Problems of Post-Communism, 57(2), 21–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Włodkowska-Bagan, A. (2013). Rywalizacja mocarstw na obszarze poradzieckim. Warsaw: Difin.Google Scholar
  64. Zając, J. (2016). Implikacje kryzysu ukraińskiego dla stosunków polsko-amerykańskich. In K. Czornik, M. Lakomy, & M. Stolarczyk (Eds.), Stosunki Polski z mocarstwami w drugiej dekadzie XXI wieku (pp. 114–127). Katowice: Uniwersytet Śląski.Google Scholar
  65. Zięba, R. (2007). Wspólna Polityka Zagraniczna i Bezpieczeństwa Unii Europejskiej. Warsaw: Wydawnictwa Profesjonalne i Akademickie.Google Scholar
  66. Zięba, R. (2013). Polityka zagraniczna Polski w strefie euroatlantyckiej. Warsaw: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.Google Scholar
  67. Zięba, R. (2015). Implikacje stosunków polsko-amerykańskich dla polityki zagranicznej Polski. Przegląd Politologiczny, 2, 7–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Zima, A. (2016). Sommet de l’OTAN à Varsovie: Un bilan. Politique étrangère, 4, 153–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Political Science and International StudiesUniversity of WarsawWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations