print

Crisis as practice:
routinizing Russia – U.S. security rivalries

Neklyudov N.Y.,

MGIMO University, Moscow, Russia, nehkludow96@gmail.com

elibrary_id: 984594 |

Baykov A.A.,

MGIMO University, Moscow, Russia, a.baykov@inno.mgimo.ru

elibrary_id: 621264 |

Shchekin A.S.,

MGIMO University, Moscow, Russia, as9416@yandex.ru

Article received: 2023.06.05. Accepted: 2023.08.30


DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2023.06.06
EDN: NEXGKI

Rubric: Theme of the issue: practices of the global crisis and mechanisms of political evolution

For citation:

Neklyudov N.Y., Baykov A.A., Shchekin A.S. Crisis as practice: routinizing Russia – U.S. security rivalries. – Polis. Political Studies. 2023. No. 6. P. 66-82. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2023.06.06. EDN: NEXGKI

The authors express their gratitude to Igor Istomin, Alexander Chekov, Iver Neumann, and Ted Hopf. The authors also thank Anne Crowley-Vigneau for her help in editing the paper.

Abstract

This article contributes to the debate on how an international crisis may contribute to ontological security. We argue that ontological security can paradoxically be achieved through escalating practices capable of provoking international crises. By merging ‘practices’, a fairly distinct theoretical perspective of International Relations, with ontological security, we seek to expand Jennifer Mitzen’s premise that “even dangerous routines provide ontological security” and consider practices as a source of attaining ontological security. To partake in the practical turn in ontological security studies, we borrow the concepts of Practice Turn in IR, habitus (disposition), and field (environment). After substantiating the connection between the two theories, we take the demise of the INF Treaty as an example of a crisis. We argue that the INF Treaty, as a field, has become a source of ontological threat to both the U.S. and Russia. Following the end of the Cold War, the U.S. and Russia have constantly changed their habitus by developing key missile technologies and deteriorating bilateral relations. Accordingly, the changed habitus no longer conformed to the realities of the field, making its delegitimization by both sides self-evident.

Keywords

practices, ontological security, INF, Russia, US.

 Full Text

Addison, B. (2009). A feel for the game – a Bourdieuian analysis of principal leadership: a study of Queensland secondary school principals. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 41(4), 327-341. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620903211554

Adler, E. (2008). The spread of security communities: communities of practice, self-restraint, and NATO’s post-cold war transformation. European Journal of International Relations, 14(2), 195-230. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066108089241

Adler, E., & Pouliot, V. (2011). International practices. International Theory, 3(1), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.1017/S175297191000031X

Adler-Nissen, R., & Pouliot, V. (2014a). Power in practice: negotiating the international intervention in Libya. European Journal of International Relations, 20(4), 889-911. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066113512702

Akchurina, V., & Della Sala, V. (2018). Russia, Europe and the ontological security dilemma: narrating the emerging Eurasian space. Europe-Asia Studies, 70(10), 1638-1655. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2018.1546829

Andersen, M.S., & Neumann, I.B. (2012). Practices as models: a methodology with an illustration concerning wampum diplomacy. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 40(3), 457-481. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829812441848

Arbatov, A. (2020). Saving strategic arms control. Survival, 62(5), 79-104. https://doi.org/10.1080/00396338.2020.1819640

Batyuk, V. (2019). The collapse of the Treaty on the elimination of intermediate-range missiles: what next? Russia and America in the 21st Century, (Special Issue). https://doi.org/10.18254/S207054760005250-2

Bicchi, F. (2014). Information exchanges, diplomatic networks and the construction of European knowledge in European Union foreign policy. Cooperation and Conflict, 49(2), 239-259. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836713482871

Bjola, C., & Kornprobst, M. (2007). Security communities and the habitus of restraint: Germany and the United States on Iraq. Review of International Studies, 33(2), 285-305. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210507007516

Borgen, C.J. (2009).  The language of law and the practice of politics: great powers and the rhetoric of self-determination in the cases of Kosovo and South Ossetia. Chicago Journal of International Law, 10(1), 1-33.

Bourdieu, P. (1992). The logic of practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Bueger, C., & Gadinger, F. (2015). The Play of International Practice. International Studies Quarterly, 59(3), 449-460. https://doi.org/10.1111/isqu.12202

Buzhinsky, E. (2014). Does the INF Treaty Have a Future? Security index: a Russian journal on international security, 20(2), 89-93.

Carlson, L.J. (1995). A theory of escalation and international conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 39(3), 511-534. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002795039003006

Cohen, A. (2013). The genesis of Europe: competing elites and the emergence of a European field of power. In Transnational Power Elites (pp. 103-120). London: Routledge.

Croft, S., & Vaughan-Williams, N. (2017). Fit for purpose? Fitting ontological security studies “into” the discipline of international relations: towards a vernacular turn. Cooperation and Conflict, 52(1), 12-30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836716653159

Ejdus, F. (2018). Critical situations, fundamental questions and ontological insecurity in world politics. Journal of International Relations and Development, 21(4), 883–908. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41268-017-0083-3

Fearon, J.D. (1994). Signaling versus the balance of power and interests: an empirical test of a crisis bargaining model. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 38(2), 236-269. http://www.jstor.org/stable/174295

Georgakakis, D., & Rowell, J. (Ed). (2013). The field of Eurocracy. London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137294708

George, A.L. & Smoke, R. (1974). Deterrence in American foreign policy. New York: Columbia University Press.

Ghoshal, D. (2016). China and the INF Treaty. Comparative Strategy, 35(5), 363-370. https://doi.org/10.1080/01495933.2016.1240982

Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory. London: Macmillan Education UK. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-16161-4

Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-Identity. Self and society in the late Modern age. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Gustafsson, K., & Krickel-Choi, N.C. (2020). Returning to the roots of ontological security: insights from the existentialist anxiety literature. European Journal of International Relations, 26(3), 875-895. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066120927073

Gutkowski, S. (2012). The British secular habitus and the war on terror. Journal of Contemporary Religion, 27(1), 87-103. https://doi.org/10.1080/13537903.2012.642737

Hansen, L. (2006). Security as practice. Discourse analysis and the Bosnian war. New York, London: Routledge.

Homolar, A., & Scholz, R. (2019). The power of Trump-speak: populist crisis narratives and ontological security. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 32(3), 344-364. https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2019.1575796

Hopf, T. (2018). Change in International Practices. European Journal of International Relations, 24(3), 687-711. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066117718041

Huth, P., & Russett, B. (1988). Deterrence failure and crisis escalation. International Studies Quarterly, 32(1), 29. https://doi.org/10.2307/2600411

Huysmans, J. (1998a). Security! What do you mean? European Journal of International Relations, 4(2), 226-255. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066198004002004

Huysmans, J. (1998b). The question of the limit: desecuritisation and the aesthetics of horror in political realism. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 27(3), 569-589. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298980270031301

Kauppi, N., & Madsen, M.R. (2014). Fields of global governance: how transnational power elites can make global governance intelligible. International Political Sociology, 8(3), 324-330. https://doi.org/10.1111/ips.12060

Kearn, D.W. (2012). Facing the missile challenge U.S. Strategy and the future of the INF Treaty. https://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG1181.html

Kinnvall, C. (2004). Globalization and religious nationalism: self, identity, and the search for ontological security. Political Psychology, 25(5), 741-767. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00396.x

Kinsella, D., & Russett, B. (2002). Conflict emergence and escalation in interactive international dyads. The Journal of Politics, 64(4), 1045-1068. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2508.00162

Kroenig, M. (2015). Facing reality: getting NATO ready for a new Cold War. Survival, 57(1), 49-70. https://doi.org/10.1080/00396338.2015.1008295

Kühn, U. (2019). Between a rock and a hard place: Europe in a post-INF world. The Nonproliferation Review, 26(1-2), 155-166. https://doi.org/10.1080/10736700.2019.1593677

Kühn, U., & Peczeli, A. (2017). Russia, NATO, and the INF Treaty. Strategic Studies Quarterly, 11, 66-99.

Kühn, U., Shetty, S. & Sinovets P. (2017). Europe s nuclear woes: mitigating the challenges of the next years. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 73(4), 245-254. https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.2017.1338022

Kustermans, J. (2016). Parsing the practice turn: practice, practical knowledge, practices. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 44(2), 175-196. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829815613045

Larsen, J.A. (2019).  NATO nuclear adaptation since 2014: the return of deterrence and renewed Alliance discomfort. Journal of Transatlantic Studies, 17(2), 174-193. https://doi.org/10.1057/s42738-019-00016-y

Leduc, R. (2021). The ontological threat of foreign fighters. European Journal of International Relations, 27(1), 127-149. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066120948122

Levine, D.J. (2017). “These days of Shoah”: history, habitus, and realpolitik in Jewish Palestine, 1942-1943. In Political Power and Social Theory (Political Power and Social Theory, Vol. 32) (pp. 99-125). Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0198-871920170000032005

Little, R. (2011). Britain s response to the Spanish Civil War. In E. Adler, & V. Pouliot (Ed.), International Practices (pp. 174-199). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511862373.011

Lupovici, A. (2012). Ontological dissonance, clashing identities, and Israel s unilateral steps towards the Palestinians. Review of International Studies, 38(4), 809-833. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210511000222

March, J.G., & Olsen, J.P. (2008). The logic of appropriateness. The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199548453.003.0034

Mérand, F. (2010). Pierre Bourdieu and the birth of European defense. Security Studies, 19(2), 342-374. https://doi.org/10.1080/09636411003795780

Mitzen, J. (2006). Ontological security in world politics: state identity and the security dilemma. European Journal of International Relations, 12(3), 341-370. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066106067346

Neumann, I.B. (2002). Returning practice to the linguistic turn: the case of diplomacy. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 31(3), 627-651. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298020310031201

Neumann, I.B., & Pouliot, V. (2011). Untimely Russia: hysteresis in Russian-Western relations over the past millennium. Security Studies, 20(1), 105-137. https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2011.549021

Pifer, S., Kulesa L., Bahr E., Neuneck G., Troitskiy M. & Kroenig M. (2015). Forum: NATO and Russia. Survival, 57(2), 119-144. https://doi.org/10.1080/00396338.2015.1026090

Pouliot, V. (2008). The logic of practicality: a theory of practice of security communities. International Organization, 62(02), 257-288. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818308080090

Pouliot, V. (2010a). International security in practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511676185

Pouliot, V. (2010b). The materials of practice: nuclear warheads, rhetorical commonplaces and committee meetings in Russian-Atlantic relations. Cooperation and Conflict, 45(3), 294-311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836710377487

Pouliot, V. (2020). Historical Institutionalism meets practice theory: renewing the selection process of the United Nations Secretary-General. International Organization, 74(4), 742-772. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002081832000020X

Pouliot, V., & Cornut, J. (2015). Practice theory and the study of diplomacy: a research agenda. Cooperation and Conflict, 50(3), 297-315. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836715574913

Ringmar, E. (2014). The search for dialogue as a hindrance to understanding: practices as inter-paradigmatic research program. International Theory, 6(1), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1752971913000316

Risse, T. (2000). “Let s argue!”: communicative action in world politics. International Organization, 54(1), 1-39. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2601316

Steele, B.J. (2005). Ontological security and the power of self-identity: British Neutrality and the American Civil War. Review of International Studies, 31(3), 519-540. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40072087

Sushentsov, A.A., & Wohlforth, W.C. (2020).  The tragedy of US–Russian relations: NATO centrality and the revisionists spiral. International Politics, 57(3), 427-450. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-020-00229-5

Suzuki, A., & Loizides, N. (2011).  Escalation of interstate crises of conflictual dyads. Cooperation and Conflict, 46(1), 21-39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836710396770

The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IIS). (Ed.). (2020). Asia-Pacific regional security assessment 2020. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003104728

Voeten, E. (2011). The practice of political manipulation. In E. Adler, & V. Pouliot (Ed.), International Practices (pp. 255-279). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511862373.015

Wendt, A.E. (1987). The agent-structure problem in international relations theory. International organization, 41(3). https://doi.org/10.1017/S002081830002751X

Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philisophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Zarakol, A. (2010). Ontological (in)security and state denial of historical crimes: Turkey and Japan. International Relations, 24(1), 3-23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117809359040

Zolotarev, P. (2008). Missile defense challenges, Russia in global affairs. https://eng.globalaffairs.ru/articles/missile-defense-challenges/

Zwolski, K. (2014). How to explain the transnational security governance of the European Union? JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 52(4), 942-958. https://doi.org/101.1111/jcms.12121 

See also: