imiМеждународная аналитикаJournal of International Analytics2587-84762541-9633MGIMO University10.46272/2587-8476-2021-12-3-87-104imi-318Research ArticleИССЛЕДОВАТЕЛЬСКИЕ СТАТЬИRESEARCH ARTICLESВ поисках оптимальной архитектуры европейской безопасности: ЕС и НАТО – вместе или вместо?Looking for the optimum security architecture in Europe: EU and NATO – together or apart?МельниковаЮ. Ю.MelnikovaJ. Yu.

Юлия Юрьевна Мельникова, аспирант МГИМО МИД России, программный ассистент 

119049, Москва, 4-й Добрынинский пер., 8.

Julia Yurievna Melnikova, PhD Student, MGIMO University, Program Assistant

8, 4th Dobryninsky Pereulok, Moscow, 119049

jmelnikova@russiancouncil.ruРоссийский совет по международным делам (РСМД)РоссияRussian International Aff airs Council (RIAC)Russian Federation20211502202112387104Copyright © Мельникова Ю.Ю., 20212021Мельникова Ю.Ю.Melnikova J.Y.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.interanalytics.org/jour/article/view/318

Изменения внешнеполитических приоритетов Вашингтона, а также внутренние проблемы в НАТО способствовали эрозии трансатлантической солидарности и развитию альтернативных проектов в области безопасности в Европе, которые сегодня заслуживают пристального исследовательского внимания. На основе параметров, разработанных в рамках концепции сообществ безопасности, автор сравнивает нынешнее состояние трансатлантической и собственно европейской систем безопасности, чтобы оценить жизнеспособность обоих проектов. Автор исходит из того, что ключевым фактором успешности НАТО и Общей внешней политики и безопасности (ОВПБ) ЕС является соответствующая коллективная идентичность объединений, и рассматривает нематериальные, институциональные и практические компоненты ее формирования и закрепления. В качестве исходной точки трансформации идентичности рассматривается развитие нового дискурса для обоснования задач дальнейшего сплочения членов объединения: в НАТО этот процесс происходит в рамках подготовки к обновлению стратегической концепции в 2022 г., а в ЕС – через развитие идеи о «стратегической автономии», и с точки зрения новизны и обоснованности он выглядит более убедительным, чем дискурс НАТО. Однако для того, чтобы общий дискурс трансформировался в общие практики, необходимо иметь разветвленную и управляемую структуру каналов взаимодействия между участниками сообщества безопасности – автор приходит к выводу, что, в то время как институциональная структура НАТО это позволяет, ЕС испытывает большие сложности в создании своей. Как следствие, накопленный в НАТО опыт общих практик, пусть не всегда успешных и комплексно реализуемых, создает внутреннюю инерцию в сообществе, сохраняя его устойчивость и предоставляя временной ресурс для преодоления внутренних противоречий. В этой ситуации построение «стратегической автономии» ЕС – вопрос не столько будущего, сколько продолжения системных усилий.

The recent years saw the most turbulent period of transformation of the liberal world order since the end of the Cold War. This directly aff ects transatlantic relations, historically serving as a beacon of the Washington’s foreign policy. This notwithstanding, while the U.S. foreign policy priorities have been changing, the members of the transatlantic community have seemed to be drifting further apart, which causes the development of alternative projects to maintain European security. This article aims to compare the current state of aff airs in the transatlantic and the European security systems, relying on the parameters, developed within the framework of the security communities theory, so as to access their feasibility and prospects. The author proceeds from the assumption that the relevant collective identity serves as a key factor for NATO’s and EU’s CFSP success and analyzes its ideational, institutional and practical components. New discourse is perceived as a starting point for transforming the identity of communities through formulating and justifying their main tasks. NATO is currently developing its new narrative while working on the alliance’s new strategic concept, with the EU elaborating on the idea of its “strategic autonomy”, creating a more vibrant and well-grounded story than NATO. However, to be translated into common practices the discourse should be rooted into a well-developed system of institutional communication channels, which is a distinctive feature of NATO, but not the EU. As a result, NATO’s experience in common practices, though not always successful and mutually complementing, creates an inertia within the community, providing for its stability and allowing for timely resolving inner confl icts. In this regard, the EU “strategic autonomy” is a matter of continuous systemic eff ort, rather than that of time.

НАТОтрансатлантические отношения«стратегическая автономия» ЕСPESCOевропейская безопасность#NATO2030NATOPESCOEuropean securityEuropean strategic autonomytransatlantic relations#NATO2030Автор выражает благодарность редакции журнала за вдумчивый подход к работе с текстом и конструктивные предложения по его совершенствованию, а также двум анонимным рецензентам за их комментарии. Отдельную признательность хочется выразить И.А. Истомину – первому читателю и критику материала – за полезные советы, замечания, провокационные вопросы и мотивацию продолжать, пришедшуюся как нельзя вовремя.The author would like to thank the editorial staff for their thoughtful approach to the text and constructive suggestions for its improvement, as well as the two anonymous reviewers for their comments. I would like to express special gratitude to I.A. Istomin, the fi rst reader and critic of the material, for his helpful advice, remarks, provocative questions, and motivation to continue, which came just in time.ReferencesАрбатов, А.Г. Расширение НАТО и национальные интересы России // Полития. – № 2 . – 2006. – C. 94–103. [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=14775345&.Arbatov, A.G. “Rasshirenie NATO i natsional'nye interesy Rossii.” Politiya, no. 2 (2006): 94–103 [In Russian].Бусыгина, И.М. Европейский Союз: новые измерения концепции суверенитета // Политическая наука. – 2005. – № 4. – C. 47–69. [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/evropeyskiysoyuz-novye-izmereniya-kontseptsii-suverenitetaБусыгина, И.М. Европейский Союз: новые измерения концепции суверенитета // Политическая наука. – 2005. – № 4. – C. 47–69. [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/evropeyskiysoyuz-novye-izmereniya-kontseptsii-suvereniteta Busygina, I.M. “Evropeiskii Soyuz: novye izmereniya kontseptsii suvereniteta.” Politicheskaya nauka, no. 4 (2005): 47–69 [In Russian].Громыко, А.А. Дилеммы Европейского оборонного союза // Контуры глобальных трансформаций: политика, экономика, право. – 2019. – Т. 12. – № 2. – C. 6–28. https://doi.org/10.23932/2542-0240-2019-12-2-6-28. .Gromyko, A.A. “Dilemmas of the European Defence Union.” Outlines of Global Transformations: Politics, Economics, Law 12, no. 2 (June 11, 2019): 6–28. https://doi.org/10.23932/2542-0240-2019-12-2-6-28.Маныкин, А., Пилько, А. Солидарность добровольная и вынужденная в исторической ретроспективе НАТО // Международные процессы. – Май /Август, 2005. – Т. 3. – № 2. – С. 100–112. [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://intertrends.ru/old/seven/010.htm.Manykin, A., Pil’ko, A. “Solidarnost’ dobrovol’naya i vynuzhdennaya v istoricheskoi retrospektive NATO.” Mezhdunarodnye protsessy 3, no. 2 (2005): 100–112 [In Russian].Мельникова, Ю.Ю. На пути к «стратегической автономии» ЕС: промежуточные итоги // Современная Европа. – 2021. – В печати.Мельникова, Ю.Ю. На пути к «стратегической автономии» ЕС: промежуточные итоги // Современная Европа. – 2021. – В печати. Melnikova, Y.Y. “‘Strategic Autonomy’: Up-todate Results.” Contemprorary Europe. Forthcoming [In Russian].Тимофеев, П.П. Сравнительный анализ приоритетов Франции и ФРГ в развитии PESCO // Журнал ИМЭМО РАН. – 2019. – № 2. – C. 33–47. https://doi.org/10.20542/aNj-2019-2-33-47.Timofeev, P. “Comparative Analysis of French and German Priorities in the Elaboration of PESCO.” Analysis and Forecasting. IMEMO Journal 2 (2019): 33–47 [In Russian].Adler, Emmanuel, and Michael Barnett. Security Communities. Cambridge University Press, 1998. Adler, Emanuel, and Vincent Pouliot. “International Practices.” International Theory 3, no. 1 (February 18, 2011): 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1017/S175297191000031X.Adler, Emmanuel, and Michael Barnett. Security Communities. Cambridge University Press, 1998. Adler, Emanuel, and Vincent Pouliot. “International Practices.” International Theory 3, no. 1 (February 18, 2011): 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1017/S175297191000031X.Adler, Emanuel. “The Spread of Security Communities: Communities of Practice, Self-Restraint, and NATO’s Post–Cold War Transformation.” European Journal of International Relations 14, no. 2 (June 1, 2008): 195–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066108089241.Adler, Emanuel. “The Spread of Security Communities: Communities of Practice, Self-Restraint, and NATO’s Post–Cold War Transformation.” European Journal of International Relations 14, no. 2 (June 1, 2008): 195–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066108089241.Adler-Nissen, Rebecca, and Vincent Pouliot. “Power in Practice: Negotiating the International Intervention in Libya.” European Journal of International Relations 20, no. 4 (December 29, 2014): 889–911. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066113512702.Adler-Nissen, Rebecca, and Vincent Pouliot. “Power in Practice: Negotiating the International Intervention in Libya.” European Journal of International Relations 20, no. 4 (December 29, 2014): 889–911. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066113512702.Barbé, Esther, and Pol Morillas. “The EU Global Strategy: The Dynamics of a More Politicized and Politically Integrated Foreign Policy.” Cambridge Review of International Aff airs 32, no. 6 (November 2, 2019): 753–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2019.1588227.Barbé, Esther, and Pol Morillas. “The EU Global Strategy: The Dynamics of a More Politicized and Politically Integrated Foreign Policy.” Cambridge Review of International Aff airs 32, no. 6 (November 2, 2019): 753–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2019.1588227.Buzan, Barry, and Laust Schouenborg. Global international society: A new framework for analysis. Cambridge University Press, 2018.Buzan, Barry, and Laust Schouenborg. Global international society: A new framework for analysis. Cambridge University Press, 2018.Hendrickson, Ryan C. “The Enlargement of NATO: The Theory and Politics of Alliance Expansion.” European Security 8, no. 4 (December 1999): 84–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839908407428.Hendrickson, Ryan C. “The Enlargement of NATO: The Theory and Politics of Alliance Expansion.” European Security 8, no. 4 (December 1999): 84–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839908407428.Lippert, Barbara and Volker Perthers. “Strategic Rivalry between United States and China. Causes, Trajectories, and Implications for Europe.” Research Paper 4. SWP. April, 2020. https://www.swp-berlin.org/fi leadmin/contents/products/research_papers/2020RP04_China_USA.pdf.Lippert, Barbara and Volker Perthers. “Strategic Rivalry between United States and China. Causes, Trajectories, and Implications for Europe.” Research Paper 4. SWP. April, 2020. https://www.swp-berlin.org/fi leadmin/contents/products/research_papers/2020RP04_China_USA.pdf.Manners, Ian. “Normative Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms?” JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 40, no. 2 (June 16, 2002): 235–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5965.00353.Manners, Ian. “Normative Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms?” JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 40, no. 2 (June 16, 2002): 235–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5965.00353.Morrow, James D. “Arms versus Allies: Trade-Off s in the Search for Security.” International Organization 47, no. 2 (May 22, 1993): 207–33. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300027922.Morrow, James D. “Arms versus Allies: Trade-Off s in the Search for Security.” International Organization 47, no. 2 (May 22, 1993): 207–33. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300027922.Neumann, Iver B. “Returning Practice to the Linguistic Turn: The Case of Diplomacy.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 31, no. 3 (July 24, 2002): 627–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298020310031201.Neumann, Iver B. “Returning Practice to the Linguistic Turn: The Case of Diplomacy.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 31, no. 3 (July 24, 2002): 627–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298020310031201.Pouliot, Vincent. “The Logic of Practicality: A Theory of Practice of Security Communities.” International Organization 62, no. 02 (April 3, 2008). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818308080090.Pouliot, Vincent. “The Logic of Practicality: A Theory of Practice of Security Communities.” International Organization 62, no. 02 (April 3, 2008). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818308080090.Pollack, Mark A. “International Relations Theory and European Integration.” JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 39, no. 2 (June 16, 2001): 22l–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5965.00286.Pollack, Mark A. “International Relations Theory and European Integration.” JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 39, no. 2 (June 16, 2001): 22l–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5965.00286.Risse, Thomas. “‘Let’s Argue!’: Communicative Action in World Politics.” International Organization 54, no. 1 (2000): 1–39.Risse, Thomas. “‘Let’s Argue!’: Communicative Action in World Politics.” International Organization 54, no. 1 (2000): 1–39.Risse, Thomas. “The Transatlantic Security Community: Erosion from Within?” In R. Alcaro, J. Peterson, E. Greco, eds. The West and the Global Power Shift, 22–43. London: Palgraive McMillan, 2016.Risse, Thomas. “The Transatlantic Security Community: Erosion from Within?” In R. Alcaro, J. Peterson, E. Greco, eds. The West and the Global Power Shift, 22–43. London: Palgraive McMillan, 2016.Smith, Michael H., and Richard Youngs. “The EU and the Global Order: Contingent Liberalism.” The International Spectator 53, no. 1 (January 2, 2018): 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/03932729.2018.1409024.Smith, Michael H., and Richard Youngs. “The EU and the Global Order: Contingent Liberalism.” The International Spectator 53, no. 1 (January 2, 2018): 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/03932729.2018.1409024.Tocci, Nathalie. Framing the EU Global Strategy. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55586-7.Tocci, Nathalie. Framing the EU Global Strategy. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55586-7.Wagnsson, Charlotte. “NATO’s Role in the Strategic Concept Debate: Watchdog, Fire-Fighter, Neighbour or Seminar Leader?” Cooperation and Confl ict 46, no. 4 (December 2, 2011): 482–501. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836711422470.Wagnsson, Charlotte. “NATO’s Role in the Strategic Concept Debate: Watchdog, Fire-Fighter, Neighbour or Seminar Leader?” Cooperation and Confl ict 46, no. 4 (December 2, 2011): 482–501. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836711422470.Wallander, Celeste A. “Institutional Assets and Adaptability: NATO after the Cold War.” International Organization 54, no. 4 (2000): 705–35.Wallander, Celeste A. “Institutional Assets and Adaptability: NATO after the Cold War.” International Organization 54, no. 4 (2000): 705–35.Waltz, Kenneth N. “NATO Expansion: A Realist’s View.” Contemporary Security Policy 21, no. 2 (August 28, 2000): 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260008404253.Waltz, Kenneth N. “NATO Expansion: A Realist’s View.” Contemporary Security Policy 21, no. 2 (August 28, 2000): 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260008404253.Williams, Michael C., and Iver B. Neumann. “From Alliance to Security Community: NATO, Russia, and the Power of Identity.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 29, no. 2 (June 24, 2000): 357–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298000290020801.Williams, Michael C., and Iver B. Neumann. “From Alliance to Security Community: NATO, Russia, and the Power of Identity.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 29, no. 2 (June 24, 2000): 357–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298000290020801.Wolff , Andrew T. “Crafting a NATO Brand: Bolstering Internal Support for the Alliance through Image Management.” Contemporary Security Policy 35, no. 1 (January 2, 2014): 73–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2014.885708.Wolff , Andrew T. “Crafting a NATO Brand: Bolstering Internal Support for the Alliance through Image Management.” Contemporary Security Policy 35, no. 1 (January 2, 2014): 73–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2014.885708.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.