{"title":"Deterrence icons as status symbols: American forces in NATO’s eastern flank","authors":"Maria Mälksoo","doi":"10.1177/00108367241254307","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"How can a signal of extended deterrence, such as prepositioning of foreign military forces, signify status for the beneficiaries of the allied deterrence/reassurance chain? This article explores how the manifestation and communication of allied deterrence can concurrently constitute an affectively charged status symbol for the protégé states of this international security practice. It does so on the example of the Baltic states and Poland, probing the presence and functionality of the American forces as a status marker in North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)’s eastern flank states after 2014. Engaging discourse analysis and expert interviews, the article shows (1) how the intersubjectively determined success of deterrence is dependent on historically potent symbols which have become emblematic of extended deterrence and (2) how deterrence icons can simultaneously serve as multifarious status symbols in intra-alliance politics. The self-identification of protégé states as worthy stakes to deter over emerges as an ambivalent status position defined by the shortage of attributes, rather than a function of their tally. The article contributes to the understanding of the symbolic form of (allied) deterrence and the multivocal status value ascribed to the American ‘boots on the ground’.","PeriodicalId":47286,"journal":{"name":"Cooperation and Conflict","volume":"49 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cooperation and Conflict","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00108367241254307","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
How can a signal of extended deterrence, such as prepositioning of foreign military forces, signify status for the beneficiaries of the allied deterrence/reassurance chain? This article explores how the manifestation and communication of allied deterrence can concurrently constitute an affectively charged status symbol for the protégé states of this international security practice. It does so on the example of the Baltic states and Poland, probing the presence and functionality of the American forces as a status marker in North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)’s eastern flank states after 2014. Engaging discourse analysis and expert interviews, the article shows (1) how the intersubjectively determined success of deterrence is dependent on historically potent symbols which have become emblematic of extended deterrence and (2) how deterrence icons can simultaneously serve as multifarious status symbols in intra-alliance politics. The self-identification of protégé states as worthy stakes to deter over emerges as an ambivalent status position defined by the shortage of attributes, rather than a function of their tally. The article contributes to the understanding of the symbolic form of (allied) deterrence and the multivocal status value ascribed to the American ‘boots on the ground’.
期刊介绍:
Published for over 40 years, the aim of Cooperation and Conflict is to promote research on and understanding of international relations. It believes in the deeds of academic pluralism and thus does not represent any specific methodology, approach, tradition or school. The mission of the journal is to meet the demands of the scholarly community having an interest in international studies (for details, see the statement "From the Editors" in Vol. 40, No. 3, September 2005). The editors especially encourage submissions contributing new knowledge of the field and welcome innovative, theory-aware and critical approaches. First preference will continue to be given to articles that have a Nordic and European focus. Cooperation and Conflict strictly adheres to a double-blind reviewing policy.