Looking for the optimum security architecture in Europe: EU and NATO – together or apart?

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.

1. Arbatov, A.G. “Rasshirenie NATO i natsional'nye interesy Rossii.” Politiya, no. 2 (2006): 94–103 [In Russian].

2. 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-suvereniteta Busygina, I.M. “Evropeiskii Soyuz: novye izmereniya kontseptsii suvereniteta.” Politicheskaya nauka, no. 4 (2005): 47–69 [In Russian].

3. 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.

4. Manykin, A., Pil’ko, A. “Solidarnost’ dobrovol’naya i vynuzhdennaya v istoricheskoi retrospektive NATO.” Mezhdunarodnye protsessy 3, no. 2 (2005): 100–112 [In Russian].

5. 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].

6. 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].

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. Buzan, Barry, and Laust Schouenborg. Global international society: A new framework for analysis. Cambridge University Press, 2018.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. Risse, Thomas. “‘Let’s Argue!’: Communicative Action in World Politics.” International Organization 54, no. 1 (2000): 1–39.

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. Tocci, Nathalie. Framing the EU Global Strategy. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55586-7.

23. 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.

24. Wallander, Celeste A. “Institutional Assets and Adaptability: NATO after the Cold War.” International Organization 54, no. 4 (2000): 705–35.

25. 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.

26. 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.

27. 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.

28.