Suchergebnisse

What do we speak of when we speak of 'hybrid warfare', a notion that has become prominent in discussions of European security? The article shows that this question is difficult to answer, as the hybrid warfare discourse is not only vague, but also consists of multiple, and at times contradictory, narratives. While talking and writing about supposedly the same thing, participants in the hybrid warfare debate often suggest markedly different ideas about the precise nature and target of the threat, offer different responses and draw upon different expertise. Grounding our argument in critical scholarship on narratives, security knowledge and hybrid warfare, we build a framework for studying security narratives around the four elements of threat, threatened value, response and underlying knowledge. This framework is utilised in a case study of Czechia, a country that has played a pioneering and outsized role in European hybrid warfare debates. We identify three narratives of hybrid warfare – defence, counterinfluence and education – which present markedly different understandings of 'hybrid warfare', and ways to defend against it. Our intervention hopes to contribute to disentangling the contradictions of the hybrid warfare discourse, itself a necessary precondition for both sound state policy and an informed public debate.

The article analyzes Germany's policies toward Russia from an ontological security perspective. We argue that foreign policy should be seen as a tool that allows states to maintain a sense of a reasonably stable self, which enables them to cope in the changing world. We develop a three-layered model conceptualizing ontological security through narratives about the self, a significant other, and the international system and show its particular relevance for explicating policy change. When threatened by a crisis, states respond by narrative adjustment that highlights continuity on some levels, while enabling change on other levels. Developing the argument that Germany's ontological security is based in the "civilian power" narrative, we use our model to reconstruct Germany's response to Russia's wars in Georgia and Ukraine. In both cases, the discourse highlighted the ongoing validity of civilian power on the level of the international order, while challenges were accommodated by adjustments on the level of the self and the significant other. Ontological security was restored vis-à-vis the changing world by reinforcing the civilian power as a norm, while shifting blame to either both Germany and Russia (2008), or Russia exclusively (2014), for not adhering to it at a given time.

Using the case of the Czech narrative on "Russian hybrid warfare" (RHW), this article contributes to the broader question of why narratives succeed. Building on Lacanian psychoanalysis, narrative scholarship, and affect/emotions research in International Relations, we suggest that narrative success is facilitated also by two interrelated factors: embedding in broader cultural contexts and the ability to incorporate and reproduce collectively circulating affects. We develop a methodological framework for encircling unobservable affects within discourse via "sticking points"—linguistic phenomena infused with affective investment. We outline three categories of sticking points—valued signifiers, fantasies, and biographical narratives. Utilizing the approach in our case study, we focus on a narrative based around the notion that Russia waged a "hybrid war" against "the West" and that this should be faced with quasi‐military measures, which was successful in changing the language of Czech national security. We show that this narrative incorporated a range of sticking points, which contributed to its relative success. It utilized valued signifiers, such as "the West," "the Kremlin," "agents," and "occupation," weaved them together into a fantasy of a threat to the nation's "Western" identity, and intertwined this with the biographical narratives of history as a lens for world politics and East/West geopolitics.

AbstractThe article analyzes Germany's policies toward Russia from an ontological security perspective. We argue that foreign policy should be seen as a tool that allows states to maintain a sense of a reasonably stable self, which enables them to cope in the changing world. We develop a three-layered model conceptualizing ontological security through narratives about the self, a significant other, and the international system and show its particular relevance for explicating policy change. When threatened by a crisis, states respond by narrative adjustment that highlights continuity on some levels, while enabling change on other levels. Developing the argument that Germany's ontological security is based in the "civilian power" narrative, we use our model to reconstruct Germany's response to Russia's wars in Georgia and Ukraine. In both cases, the discourse highlighted the ongoing validity of civilian power on the level of the international order, while challenges were accommodated by adjustments on the level of the self and the significant other. Ontological security was restored vis-à-vis the changing world by reinforcing the civilian power as a norm, while shifting blame to either both Germany and Russia (2008), or Russia exclusively (2014), for not adhering to it at a given time.

Auch die Beziehungen zwischen Deutschland und der Tschechischen Republik wur­den von der Ausbreitung des SARS-CoV-2-Virus in Mitleidenschaft gezogen. Dominierendes Thema in den ersten Wochen der Pandemie war die Schließung der Grenzen durch die Tschechische Republik. Die grenzüberschreitende Zusammenarbeit wurde jäh unterbrochen, erst nach und nach konnten Lockerungen erreicht werden. Bald zeigte sich, dass die Corona-Krise auch ein bedeutendes Thema für die europapolitische Komponente des beiderseitigen Verhältnisses sein würde. In der Krise wurde auch sichtbar, dass die sicherheitspolitischen Verschiebungen der letzten Jahre und neue internationale Entwicklungen in das deutsch-tschechische Verhältnis hineinspielen. Beide Länder sollten daher ihre Kommunikationsinstrumente, insbesondere den Strategischen Dialog der Regierungen nutzen, überdies aber auch drängende Herausforderungen wie den Umbau zentraler Industrien gemeinsam reflektieren.

Die deutsch-tschechischen Beziehungen geraten in eine komplizierte Phase. Nachdem in beiden Ländern die Parlamente neu gewählt worden sind, steht nun die Regierungs-bildung an. Währenddessen ist neuer Schwung in die Diskussion über die Reform der EU gekommen, ohne dass Berlin oder Prag mit eigenen Vorschlägen an die Öffentlich-keit getreten wären. Bilateral wird das Thema zwar konstruktiv, aber nicht schlüssig behandelt. Vor allem die Konturen der tschechischen Europapolitik sind seit Jahren unklar. Um mehr als nur ein pragmatisches Nebeneinander zu sichern und einem Auseinanderdriften in der EU rechtzeitig entgegenzuwirken, müssen beide Seiten die europapolitische Dimension ihres Verhältnisses bewusst weiterentwickeln.