Advertisement

The Military Balance in the Baltic Sea Region: Notes on a Defunct Concept

  • Magnus ChristianssonEmail author
Chapter
  • 1.8k Downloads
Part of the Global Power Shift book series (GLOBAL)

Abstract

It is something of a general assumption that in the diverse field that we call International Relations the terminology associated with power politics has been closely associated with the realist approach. This is an understanding that creates a need for further clarification. As pointed out by Barry Buzan and Ole Waever in 2007, the security theory field is differentiated as European scholars have tended to be interested in a reflexive approach to the security concept, while American scholarship has focused on empirically validated cause-effect relationships relevant to policy issues (Buzan and Waever 2007). Buzan and Waever describe the social backdrop for these differences and make a contrast between “critical theory” and “problem-solving theory”. Perhaps a premature conclusion would be that terms and concepts like military balance and power politics have disappeared from the discourse of both academia and politics in Europe. They sound like an anachronism from the Cold War that many are uncomfortable with.

Keywords

Power Politics Baltic State Defence Spending Military Capability Defence Budget 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Baldwin, D. A. (2006). Power and international relations. In W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse, & B. A. Simmons (Eds.), Handbook of international relations. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Buzan, B., & Waever, O. (2003). Regions and powers. The structure of international security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buzan, B., & Waever, O. (2007). After the return to theory. In A. Collins (Ed.), Contemporary security studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. CSCE. (1990). Charter of Paris for a New Europe. Google Scholar
  5. Friedman, T. (1999). The Lexus and the Olive Tree. Understanding globalization. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  6. German and Russian Foreign Ministries. (2010). Meseberg memorandum. Google Scholar
  7. Gill, G., & Markwick, R. D. (2000). Russia’s stillborn democracy? From Gorbatchev to Yeltsin. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Hedlund, S. (2005). Russian path dependence. Oxon/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. IISS. (2010). The military balance 2010. The global assessment of global military capabilities and defence economics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Jonson, P. (2010). The debate about Article 5 and its credibility. What is it all about? NATO Defense College Research Paper No. 58 May.Google Scholar
  11. Knudsen, O. F. (2007). Security strategies, power disparity and identity. The Baltic Sea region. Aldershot/Burlingston: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  12. Little, R. (2007). The balance of power in international relations. Metaphors, myths and models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Lucas, E. (2008). The new Cold War. How the Kremlin Menaces both Russia and the West. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  14. Mearsheimer, J. (1990). Back to the future. Instability in Europe after the Cold War. International Security, 15(1), 5–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. NB8. (2010). NB8 wise men report. Google Scholar
  16. RiaNovosti. (2010). Iskander missile deployment in northwestern Russia incomprehensible – Estonian defense minister. http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20100720/159873088.html
  17. Ring, S. (red.) (2009). Nordisk försvarstransformation – Militärstrategisk utveckling i Danmark, Finland och Norge efter det kalla kriget (FM Litt 922:2802) Stockholm: FHS Ö166/2008:40.Google Scholar
  18. Sundelius, B. (Ed.). (1982). Foreign policies of Northern Europe. Boulder: Westview.Google Scholar
  19. Thielbeer, S. (2008). Baltische Befürchtungen: Das Verschenkte Georgien Frankfurter Allgemine Zeitung 26 August.Google Scholar
  20. US Navy. (2010). CNO Visits Norway, Sweden. http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=55522.
  21. Valacek, T. (2008). What does the war in Georgia mean for EU foreign policy? Centre for European Reform briefing note, August.Google Scholar
  22. Walt, S. M. (1987). The origins of alliances. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Zakaria, F. (2003). The future of freedom: Illiberal democracies of home and abroad. New York: Barnes and Noble.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department for Security and StrategySwedish National Defence CollegeStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations