[Viewpoint] Russian spatial imaginaries and the invasion of Ukraine: geopolitics and nationalist fantasies

As Alec Murphy (this forum) argues, Russia's invasion of Ukraine highlights the continuing relevance of the modernist territorial imagination – but this should not lead us to adopt simplistic explanations of Russia's actions. Linear geopolitical assumptions about the link between territory and great power behaviour continue to dominate Western debates about the invasion and underpin an excessive focus on Russian national security perceptions and the role of NATO (e.g. Mearsheimer, 2022; for a more critical perspective see Megoran, this forum). Ironically, such a focus fails to capture the full significance of the modernist territorial imagination in this war. As has been pointed out, foregrounding NATO cannot account for the role of Ukrainian agency (see Vorbrugg and Bluwstein, this forum). But it also brushes over the complex entanglement of spatial and statist imaginaries that exist on the Russian side, with implications not only for the ongoing debate about the reasons for the invasion but also for predictions about possible outcomes of the war. We need to pay more attention to variants of modernist territorial imaginaries, especially when moving beyond the ‘core West’ of Europe and the US – while also acknowledging that these imaginaries continue to have wide emotional appeal and are not simply a residual of the way the international system operates (Penrose, 2002). In this I argue, with Stuart Elden and others, for an understanding of ‘territory as a process, not an outcome, (…) continually made and remade’ (Elden, 2013, p. 35; cf. also Jackman et al., 2020). This does not mean that we should leave (nation-)statism behind when thinking about territory, but that we need to pay attention to the specifics of statist and spatial imaginaries and the way they co-produce geopolitical contexts. The invasion is both motivated by modernist territorial imaginaries and already changing them, including in an apparent re-territorialization of ‘Russia’ whose ultimate significance is not yet clear. Great power-ness (derzhavnost’) in current Kremlin discourse and practices is best understood as part of the visceral political affect of nationalism. To the Kremlin, Ukraine's relationship with NATO matters primarily for its affective and symbolic value, a geopolitics of identity that is co-produced at different scales between Russia, Ukraine and the West. Ultimately, what may be at stake is not so much Russian national security but regime security and the surprisingly fragile domestic (self-)legitimation of the Kremlin, which in recent years has increasingly relied on a set of narratives and conspiracy theories based on spatial imaginaries that resonate with ordinary Russians (Ortmann, 2017; Greene, 2022)

Re-imagining Westphalia: Identity in IR and the discursive construction of the Russian state.

This thesis examines assumptions about state and identity in constructivist IR theory and the analysis of Russian foreign policy through the looking glass of Russian representations of "state identity" - representations of the Russian state as "Russia" - in the political discourse of the Russian elite since the end of the Soviet Union, Drawing on empirical research into the discursive representation of the new Russian state, it shows that categories of statehood and identity are more variable in meaning and indeed more ambiguous than allowed for by current dominant conceptions of state identity in IR, which revolve around the categories of the Westphalian system. This becomes evident when studying Russia - a country which is at the same time outsider and insider, a constitutive part of the Westphalian system, defining the state in strongly Westphalian terms, and yet excluded from the West. In the case of Russia, instead of the clear-cut categories and binary distinctions of the Westphalian system there emerges a conceptual field in which inside and outside, identity and difference are inherently ambiguous and diffuse. It is argued that constructivist assumptions about identity face a problem of the relationship between theory and substantive research, insofar as theoretical commitments may obscure actual representations of identity in Russia, neglecting where and why categories of identity are actually produced, and equating categories of identity with identifications. They also face a normative problem, given that IR constructivism reinforces a problematic account of subjectivity inherent in the Westphalian narrative and is in danger of reifying a binary choice between identity and difference as the only possible relationship between the West and the non- Western world. The thesis develops a conceptualization of identity drawing on Gadamerian hermeneutics and a framework for empirical research based on conceptual history that allows for an investigation of the context-dependent meaning of categories of statehood and identity and can go some way to escaping the logic of binary oppositions that has characterized conceptions of identity in IR

Geopolitics and grand strategy

Geopolitics and grand strategy are modern concepts of statecraft associated with the rise and decline of Great Powers. This chapter looks at the concept of geopolitics and its significance for grand strategy. It does so by tracing the development of the concepts and showing how the meaning of the concepts evolved in response to changing world historical contexts. It explains why geopolitics and grand strategy are associated with the politics of Great Powers and why these concepts are currently making a comeback. The chapter then goes on to discuss the pitfalls and problems associated with formulating a grand strategy, and why geopolitics is as much about interpretation as it is about objective geographical factors

Contextualizing the Contextualizers: How the Area Studies Controversy is Different in Different Places

As part of recent years’ efforts at reaching a more context- and diversity-sensitive study of international relations, the nexus between fields of IR and Area Studies (AS) has received a renewed attention. While AS is usually presented as the “contextualizer” of the disciplines, this forum reverses the perspective by suggesting that an awareness of both diversity and context is also relevant when it comes to understanding the evolution of the field of AS and its relations to IR. In this forum, a selection of scholars with diverse backgrounds (US, Middle East, Europe, Latin America, Africa, and Central Asia), different (inter)disciplinary trainings and regional orientations examines how various fields of AS and its relations to the disciplines vary, and what follows from a stronger attention to such kind of diversity. By contextualizing the contextualizers, the forum brings attention to how a context-sensitive field can also suffer from its own provincialism. While the US-centric narrative about AS might have been almost “hegemonic,” at closer inspection, it turns out that AS in different (sub)disciplinary and geographical settings have evolved differently, and in some places the so-called Area Studies controversy (ASC) has been almost absent. A broadening of the perspective also reveals how the challenges to a successful cross-fertilization are not limited to those outlined in the “classic” ASC, but the forum does simultaneously offer encouraging lessons on how dialogues between area specialists and discipline-oriented scholars can help to overcome epistemological, theoretical, or methodological blind spots. Rather than presenting the IR/AS nexus as a panacea per se, the aim of the forum is therefore to invite to a broader and more self-reflective discussion on some of the opportunities as well as challenges associated with this strategy for making the study of international relations more context-sensitive and attentive to different forms of diversity.El nexo existente entre los campos de las RRII y los Estudios de Área (AS, por sus siglas en inglés) ha recibido una atención renovada, como parte de los esfuerzos que se han llevado a cabo durante los últimos años para lograr que el estudio de las relaciones internacionales sea más sensible al contexto y a la diversidad. Si bien los EA suelen presentarse como “contextualizadores” de las diferentes disciplinas, este foro pretende invertir esta perspectiva sugiriendo que la conciencia, tanto en materia de la diversidad como en materia del contexto, también es relevante a la hora de comprender la evolución del campo de los EA y sus relaciones con las RRII. En este foro, una selección de académicos de diversas procedencias (EE. UU., Oriente Medio, Europa, América Latina, África, Asia Central), con diferentes formaciones (inter)disciplinarias y con orientaciones regionales, examina cómo varían los diversos campos de los EA, así como sus relaciones con las disciplinas, y las consecuencias de prestar una mayor atención a este tipo de diversidad. Por el hecho de contextualizar estos contextualizadores, el foro pone de manifiesto cómo incluso un campo sensible al contexto puede sufrir de su propio provincialismo. Si bien la narrativa en materia de EA centrada en los Estados Unidos podría haber llegado a ser casi “hegemónica,” podemos observar, si se estudia más de cerca, que los EA han evolucionado de manera diferente en diferentes entornos (sub)disciplinarios y geográficos, y que, en algunos lugares, la llamada controversia de los Estudios de Área (ASC, por sus siglas en inglés) ha estado casi ausente. Una ampliación de esta perspectiva también revela cómo los desafíos para una retroalimentación exitosa no se limitan a los que esboza la ASC “clásica,” sino que el foro ofrece simultáneamente lecciones alentadoras sobre cómo los diálogos entre los especialistas de esta área y los académicos orientados a esta disciplina pueden ayudar a superar los puntos ciegos epistemológicos, teóricos o metodológicos. Por lo tanto, en lugar de presentar el nexo RRII/AS como una panacea per se, el objetivo del foro es invitar a un debate más amplio y autorreflexivo sobre algunas de las oportunidades y de los desafíos asociados con esta estrategia con el fin de conseguir que el estudio de las relaciones internacionales sea más sensible al contexto y esté más atento a las diferentes formas de diversidad.Dans le cadre des efforts des dernières années en vue d'une étude des relations internationales plus sensible au contexte et à la diversité, les relations entre les domaines des RI et Études régionales (ER) ont connu un regain d'intérêt. Bien que les ER soient généralement présentées comme le “contextualisateur” des disciplines, ce forum inverse ce point de vue en suggérant qu'une sensibilisation à la diversité et au contexte est également pertinente pour comprendre l’évolution du domaine des ER et ses relations avec les RI. Dans ce forum, une sélection de chercheurs aux profils variés (États-Unis, Moyen-Orient, Europe, Amérique latine, Afrique, Asie centrale), aux différentes formations (inter)disciplinaires et orientations régionales s'intéresse à comment divers domaines des ER et leurs relations avec les disciplines varient, et aux conséquences d'un intérêt grandissant pour de telles formes de diversité. En contextualisant les contextualisateurs, le forum attire aussi l'attention sur comment un domaine sensible au contexte peut souffrir de son propre provincialisme. Bien que le récit centré sur les États-Unis concernant les ER ait pu être presque “hégémonique”, en y regardant de plus près, les ER dans différents contextes (sous-)disciplinaires et géographiques ont évolué différemment. À certains endroits, la soi-disant controverse des Études régionales (CER) est pratiquement absente. Un élargissement du point de vue révèle également que la réussite de la fertilisation croisée ne se limite pas à sa description dans les CER “classiques”, mais le forum offre également des leçons encourageantes: le dialogue entre les spécialistes du domaine et les chercheurs orientés vers la discipline peuvent permettre de surmonter les angles morts épistémologiques, théoriques et méthodologiques. Plutôt que de présenter les relations entre RI et ER comme une panacée en tant que telle, ce forum a donc pour but d'inviter à une discussion plus large, qui pousse à l'autoréflexion, quant à certaines opportunités et certains défis associés à cette stratégie afin de rendre l’étude des relations internationales plus sensible au contexte et attentive à différentes formes de diversité

The Cold Peace: Russo-Western Relations as a Mimetic Cold War

In 1989–1991 the geo-ideological contestation between two blocs was swept away, together with the ideology of civil war and its concomitant Cold War played out on the larger stage. Paradoxically, while the domestic sources of Cold War confrontation have been transcended, its external manifestations remain in the form of a ‘legacy’ geopolitical contest between the dominant hegemonic power (the United States) and a number of potential rising great powers, of which Russia is one. The post-revolutionary era is thus one of a ‘cold peace’. A cold peace is a mimetic cold war. In other words, while a cold war accepts the logic of conflict in the international system and between certain protagonists in particular, a cold peace reproduces the behavioural patterns of a cold war but suppresses acceptance of the logic of behaviour. A cold peace is accompanied by a singular stress on notions of victimhood for some and undigested and bitter victory for others. The perceived victim status of one set of actors provides the seedbed for renewed conflict, while the ‘victory’ of the others cannot be consolidated in some sort of relatively unchallenged post-conflict order. The ‘universalism’ of the victors is now challenged by Russia's neo-revisionist policy, including not so much the defence of Westphalian notions of sovereignty but the espousal of an international system with room for multiple systems (the Schmittean pluriverse)

Beyond spheres of influence: the myth of the state and Russia’s seductive power in Kyrgyzstan

This article questions the analytical value of “spheres of influence” for understanding power and the state in the post-Soviet region and beyond, based on a critical deconstruction of the ontological and epistemological assumptions inherent in the concept. It proposes an alternative reading of power and the state, drawing on the concept of “seductive power” at a distance and Timothy Mitchell’s “state effect.” Rather than the concept of a sphere of influence, a highly politicized concept that conveys an ontology that flattens and divides space, essentializes the state, and relies on an intentionalist account of power, we need an analytical framework that can help us make sense of the multiple, varied spatialities and historical legacies that produce the state and power. I demonstrate this through an extended discussion of Russian power in Kyrgyzstan, a country often described as a Russian client state. Mobilizing recent re-conceptualizations of state and power in anthropology and political geography, I present an analysis of Russia’s seductive power in Kyrgyzstan and the way it contributes to producing Kyrgyz state-ness. I also show how Russia’s Great Power myth is itself evolving and conclude that the differentiated, relational production of space and power in either Kyrgyz or Russian myths of the state is not captured by a the concept of a return to spheres of influence

Russlands Macht in Kirgistan: Mythos und Verführung

Der russische Einfluss in Kirgistan wird viel zu oft durch die Linse traditioneller geopolitischer Konzepte analysiert. Dies führt dazu, dass die Erfahrungen der kirgisischen Bevölkerung und die Eigenschaften kirgisischer Staatlichkeit ignoriert werden und damit ein wichtiger Teil des russischen Einflusses übersehen wird. Die Autorin zeigt in ihrer Analyse, wie gefühlte Nähe in Verbindung mit einem gemeinsamen Staatsmythos russische Macht in Kirgistan aufrechterhält, und diskutiert Reichweite und Grenzen russischer "verführerischer Macht"

The post-Soviet myth of the strong state in Russia

No description supplie

Spheres of influence

However compelling the narrative of a ‘return of spheres of influence’ appears, it is both empirically limited and normatively problematic. The concept evokes assumptions about a world dominated by Great Powers, but also an ontology of space as fixed, bounded territory under the exclusive control of a powerful state actor. It denies local agency in depicting spheres of influence as territory that is essentially passive and empty, fought over by outside actors. These assumptions are misleading, unable to capture the complex entanglements of relations and processes that co-produce state, space and power at the present global juncture. They produce much more fluid spatialities, the result of both historical legacies and the transformation of state power over the past few decades. This is visible in Russia’s relations with the former Soviet Union, where forms of Russian power are ill-described by the ontological assumptions of ‘spheres of influence’