The independent role of international institutions has been taken to be the core of the debate between institutionalists and realists. This study explores the EU’s relations with Russia in two cases as a testbed for this debate. Institutional independence, meaning restriction on the ambitions of powerful states on the one hand, and the impact of less powerful states on decisions on the other, are taken here to be the opposite of the power politics of realism. Two cases are studied to show how the EU safeguards the rights and interests of small members and restrains the ambitions of powerful ones to make the case for the institutionalists’ argument. The article also shows how a supranational entity like the European Commission is relatively more successful than an intergovernmental one like the Council of Europe in furthering institutionalisation, even in high-profile cases which are lynchpins of the EU’s Russia policy. This is in line with institutionalists’ argument about the significance of institutionalisation, as the European Commission, through its regulatory mechanism, sets overarching rules and links issues, brings transparency by forcing information sharing, dispels the fear of cheating and paves the ground for more comparative empirical research to evaluate the depth of institutionalisation in supranational and intergovernmental institutions.
{"title":"EU’s External Action and Russia: How Can Institutionalisation Affect Decision Making?","authors":"H. Moshirzadeh, Issa Adeli","doi":"10.51870/ndws5736","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.51870/ndws5736","url":null,"abstract":"The independent role of international institutions has been taken to be the core of the debate between institutionalists and realists. This study explores the EU’s relations with Russia in two cases as a testbed for this debate. Institutional independence, meaning restriction on the ambitions of powerful states on the one hand, and the impact of less powerful states on decisions on the other, are taken here to be the opposite of the power politics of realism. Two cases are studied to show how the EU safeguards the rights and interests of small members and restrains the ambitions of powerful ones to make the case for the institutionalists’ argument. The article also shows how a supranational entity like the European Commission is relatively more successful than an intergovernmental one like the Council of Europe in furthering institutionalisation, even in high-profile cases which are lynchpins of the EU’s Russia policy. This is in line with institutionalists’ argument about the significance of institutionalisation, as the European Commission, through its regulatory mechanism, sets overarching rules and links issues, brings transparency by forcing information sharing, dispels the fear of cheating and paves the ground for more comparative empirical research to evaluate the depth of institutionalisation in supranational and intergovernmental institutions.","PeriodicalId":38461,"journal":{"name":"Central European Journal of International and Security Studies","volume":"75 21","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140371283","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This comparative case study investigated the financing typologies of Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in Turkey. PKK is a Marxist- Leninist organization that pursues ethnic separationist policies in Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. ISIL is a radical Wahhabi network that aspires to re-establish the Caliphate and restore the “glory” of Sharia by defeating the “near” and “far” enemies. These networks are chosen for this case study as they operate in close proximity along Turkish, Iraqi and Syrian borders. In addition to primary and secondary interviews, the research has been based on content analysis of unclassified documents and media coverage on counter PKK/ISIL investigations. This study indicated that both organizations have been highly skillful in exploiting the regional licit and illicit enterprises. Financing methods of PKK and ISIL were similar in complex regional underground economic infrastructure. However, PKK has been able to develop much more sophisticated financial infrastructure than ISIL due to a longer life span and existence of specialized cadres in the Middle East and Europe. Ideology had a significant impact on differences in state sponsorship and exploitation of non-profit organizations. Both the Marxists and radical İslamists encouraged illicit trade schemes not only to generate funds but also to avoid taxation by the “hostile” regimes. ISIL has failed to develop advanced financing infrastructure mainly due to a shorter life span, loss of territorial control and the UN-US sponsored international sanctions.
{"title":"Terrorism Financing Typologies: Comparison of PKK and ISIL in Turkey","authors":"Behsat Ekici, Musa Tuzuner","doi":"10.51870/eqvw6260","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.51870/eqvw6260","url":null,"abstract":"This comparative case study investigated the financing typologies of Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in Turkey. PKK is a Marxist- Leninist organization that pursues ethnic separationist policies in Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. ISIL is a radical Wahhabi network that aspires to re-establish the Caliphate and restore the “glory” of Sharia by defeating the “near” and “far” enemies. These networks are chosen for this case study as they operate in close proximity along Turkish, Iraqi and Syrian borders. In addition to primary and secondary interviews, the research has been based on content analysis of unclassified documents and media coverage on counter PKK/ISIL investigations. This study indicated that both organizations have been highly skillful in exploiting the regional licit and illicit enterprises. Financing methods of PKK and ISIL were similar in complex regional underground economic infrastructure. However, PKK has been able to develop much more sophisticated financial infrastructure than ISIL due to a longer life span and existence of specialized cadres in the Middle East and Europe. Ideology had a significant impact on differences in state sponsorship and exploitation of non-profit organizations. Both the Marxists and radical İslamists encouraged illicit trade schemes not only to generate funds but also to avoid taxation by the “hostile” regimes. ISIL has failed to develop advanced financing infrastructure mainly due to a shorter life span, loss of territorial control and the UN-US sponsored international sanctions.","PeriodicalId":38461,"journal":{"name":"Central European Journal of International and Security Studies","volume":"87 22","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140370959","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In 2016, the EU Global Strategy introduced the ambition of strategic autonomy, referring to the ability to protect the Union against external threats autonomously. To realise this ambition, the EU also launched various capability development initiatives, in particular, the European Defence Fund (EDF). Much of the available literature presents rationalist explanations of the EU’s development of strategic autonomy and the EDF. These studies attribute strategic autonomy ambition to external conditions and consider it as an act of strategic hedging or bandwagoning. However, the subsequent limited progress in actual capability development casts doubt on these explanations. By drawing on historical institutionalism, this study examines the EU’s current approach to strategic autonomy to see whether internal factors would offer an alternative explanation to the disjunction between the ambitions and actions. For this aim, the study scrutinises the evolution of the EDF as an instrument and the role of the Commission as an agent of change. Based on primary and secondary data, the analysis shows that even though external crises have created critical junctures that compel the EU to reorient its goals, the endogenous elements of institutional change have significantly influenced the EU’s choice of means and redistribution of resources. The findings reveal that the Commission’s ability to reinterpret the original rules and exploit gaps and ambiguities in their local enactment in a path-dependent manner has considerably affected the outcome of this change.
{"title":"Half-Hearted or Pragmatic? Explaining EU Strategic Autonomy and the European Defence Fund through Institutional Dynamics","authors":"Seray Kilic","doi":"10.51870/fslg6223","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.51870/fslg6223","url":null,"abstract":"In 2016, the EU Global Strategy introduced the ambition of strategic autonomy, \u0000referring to the ability to protect the Union against external threats autonomously. To \u0000realise this ambition, the EU also launched various capability development initiatives, \u0000in particular, the European Defence Fund (EDF). Much of the available literature \u0000presents rationalist explanations of the EU’s development of strategic autonomy and \u0000the EDF. These studies attribute strategic autonomy ambition to external conditions \u0000and consider it as an act of strategic hedging or bandwagoning. However, the \u0000subsequent limited progress in actual capability development casts doubt on these \u0000explanations. By drawing on historical institutionalism, this study examines the EU’s \u0000current approach to strategic autonomy to see whether internal factors would offer \u0000an alternative explanation to the disjunction between the ambitions and actions. For \u0000this aim, the study scrutinises the evolution of the EDF as an instrument and the role \u0000of the Commission as an agent of change. Based on primary and secondary data, the \u0000analysis shows that even though external crises have created critical junctures that \u0000compel the EU to reorient its goals, the endogenous elements of institutional change \u0000have significantly influenced the EU’s choice of means and redistribution of resources. The findings reveal that the Commission’s ability to reinterpret the original rules and \u0000exploit gaps and ambiguities in their local enactment in a path-dependent manner \u0000has considerably affected the outcome of this change.","PeriodicalId":38461,"journal":{"name":"Central European Journal of International and Security Studies","volume":"28 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140372111","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article discusses pre-existing studies of Euro-Orientalism (Orientalism directed at Eastern Europe), and advocates for further study of the inequal relationship between Europe's West and East. In this sense, this article should help to overview and advance the study this phenomenon. A better understanding of Euro-Orientalism is necessary both in order to counter epistemic injustice, and in order to promote realistic policy recommendations for the region. In this latter connection, the article argues that the West's inability to take proper account of Eastern European historical experiences contributed to its failure to prepare for Russia's all-out invasion of Ukraine in early 2022.
{"title":"Western Orientalism Targeting Eastern Europe: An Emerging Research Programme","authors":"Mart Kuldkepp","doi":"10.51870/aemq7827","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.51870/aemq7827","url":null,"abstract":"This article discusses pre-existing studies of Euro-Orientalism (Orientalism directed at Eastern Europe), and advocates for further study of the inequal relationship between Europe's West and East. In this sense, this article should help to overview and advance the study this phenomenon. A better understanding of Euro-Orientalism is necessary both in order to counter epistemic injustice, and in order to promote realistic policy recommendations for the region. In this latter connection, the article argues that the West's inability to take proper account of Eastern European historical experiences contributed to its failure to prepare for Russia's all-out invasion of Ukraine in early 2022.","PeriodicalId":38461,"journal":{"name":"Central European Journal of International and Security Studies","volume":"399 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138974152","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In a recent essay on the war in Ukraine in The Journal of Genocide Research, Maria Mälksoo argues that the ongoing war in Ukraine has become a ‘decolonising moment of sorts’ as Central and Eastern European states have started taking the ‘moral and practical lead’ in supporting Ukraine and thus asserting their own agency. Following this line of argumentation, this paper will explore the Baltic states’ vicarious identification with Ukraine, identifying multiple ways in which these actors have initiated policies to support Ukraine internationally and the ways in which solidarity with Ukraine have been received by various domestic constituencies, including ethnic minorities. By vicariously identifying with Ukraine, the Baltic states have continued their transformation from ‘policy-takers’ to ‘policy-makers’ in the European security landscape. This transformation can be traced back to 2004, when they joined the transatlantic community and the European Union. At the same time, similarly to the 2013–2014 crisis in Ukraine, the trauma of the war has become an engine of new discourses and new divisions within the Baltic states, prompting societal debates about the legacy of the Soviet Union associated with Russia (including the fate of monuments to Soviet soldiers) and the relationship with Russian culture.
{"title":"‘A Decolonising Moment of Sorts’: The Baltic States’ Vicarious Identification with Ukraine and Related Domestic and Foreign Policy Developments","authors":"Dovilė Budrytė","doi":"10.51870/ypij8030","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.51870/ypij8030","url":null,"abstract":"In a recent essay on the war in Ukraine in The Journal of Genocide Research, Maria Mälksoo argues that the ongoing war in Ukraine has become a ‘decolonising moment of sorts’ as Central and Eastern European states have started taking the ‘moral and practical lead’ in supporting Ukraine and thus asserting their own agency. Following this line of argumentation, this paper will explore the Baltic states’ vicarious identification with Ukraine, identifying multiple ways in which these actors have initiated policies to support Ukraine internationally and the ways in which solidarity with Ukraine have been received by various domestic constituencies, including ethnic minorities. By vicariously identifying with Ukraine, the Baltic states have continued their transformation from ‘policy-takers’ to ‘policy-makers’ in the European security landscape. This transformation can be traced back to 2004, when they joined the transatlantic community and the European Union. At the same time, similarly to the 2013–2014 crisis in Ukraine, the trauma of the war has become an engine of new discourses and new divisions within the Baltic states, prompting societal debates about the legacy of the Soviet Union associated with Russia (including the fate of monuments to Soviet soldiers) and the relationship with Russian culture.","PeriodicalId":38461,"journal":{"name":"Central European Journal of International and Security Studies","volume":"81 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139001229","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article argues that NATO's current burden-sharing regime, which I term the proportional model of NATO burden-sharing and which obligates each NATO member to allocate at least 2 percent of its GDP to defence, is deeply flawed from a purely ethical standpoint. This is because the proportional model omits from its approach to distributing the burdens of collective defence two morally relevant ally-level characteristics: namely, individual level of economic development and individual level of external threat. The model therefore treats unfairly both those allies characterised by especially low levels of economic development and those allies characterised by especially high levels of external threat, relative in each case to the alliance-wide average. The article argues that the proportional model should be replaced by that I term the prioritarian model of NATO burden-sharing, which is grounded in the normative theory of prioritarianism from the distributive justice literature. The prioritarian model would morally improve upon the proportional model by incorporating the aforementioned two ally-level characteristics (level of economic development and level of external threat) into its burden-sharing system in the form of two action-guiding prescriptions. The prioritarian model is therefore the fairer of the two models and consequently should be adopted by NATO.
{"title":"Transcending Two Percent: Toward a Prioritarian Model of NATO Burden-Sharing","authors":"David Rubin","doi":"10.51870/snht6810","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.51870/snht6810","url":null,"abstract":"This article argues that NATO's current burden-sharing regime, which I term the proportional model of NATO burden-sharing and which obligates each NATO member to allocate at least 2 percent of its GDP to defence, is deeply flawed from a purely ethical standpoint. This is because the proportional model omits from its approach to distributing the burdens of collective defence two morally relevant ally-level characteristics: namely, individual level of economic development and individual level of external threat. The model therefore treats unfairly both those allies characterised by especially low levels of economic development and those allies characterised by especially high levels of external threat, relative in each case to the alliance-wide average. The article argues that the proportional model should be replaced by that I term the prioritarian model of NATO burden-sharing, which is grounded in the normative theory of prioritarianism from the distributive justice literature. The prioritarian model would morally improve upon the proportional model by incorporating the aforementioned two ally-level characteristics (level of economic development and level of external threat) into its burden-sharing system in the form of two action-guiding prescriptions. The prioritarian model is therefore the fairer of the two models and consequently should be adopted by NATO.","PeriodicalId":38461,"journal":{"name":"Central European Journal of International and Security Studies","volume":"143 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138972960","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Identifying Security Logics in the EU Policy Discourse: The “Migration Crisis” and the EU","authors":"John Louis B. Benito","doi":"10.51870/wujq2612","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.51870/wujq2612","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":38461,"journal":{"name":"Central European Journal of International and Security Studies","volume":"78 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136361342","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The UN Security Council continues to play a critical role in ensuring the maintenance of international peace and security. Towards this end, the Council has over the years delineated maritime piracy in the Gulf of Guinea as a threat to international peace and security. Through Resolutions 2018 and 2039, the Council has since 2011 adopted what is largely a militarised approach to dealing with the menace of piracy in the region, similar to its approach in the Gulf of Aden. Even though threat levels are beginning to decline, the Gulf of Guinea is still considered a maritime hotspot. It is within this context that the Council has been moved to reconsider its militarised approaches to include non-kinetic measures. Recognising the critical interface between militarised and non-kinetic measures, the Council has adopted Resolution 2634 in what is considered to be a significant departure from its previous approach. This paper interrogates the rationale for this departure and assesses the extent to which this new approach would support the fight against piracy in the region.
{"title":"The Role of the UN Security Council in the Fight Against Piracy in the Gulf of Guinea","authors":"Frederick Boamah","doi":"10.51870/lqhu1305","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.51870/lqhu1305","url":null,"abstract":"The UN Security Council continues to play a critical role in ensuring the maintenance of international peace and security. Towards this end, the Council has over the years delineated maritime piracy in the Gulf of Guinea as a threat to international peace and security. Through Resolutions 2018 and 2039, the Council has since 2011 adopted what is largely a militarised approach to dealing with the menace of piracy in the region, similar to its approach in the Gulf of Aden. Even though threat levels are beginning to decline, the Gulf of Guinea is still considered a maritime hotspot. It is within this context that the Council has been moved to reconsider its militarised approaches to include non-kinetic measures. Recognising the critical interface between militarised and non-kinetic measures, the Council has adopted Resolution 2634 in what is considered to be a significant departure from its previous approach. This paper interrogates the rationale for this departure and assesses the extent to which this new approach would support the fight against piracy in the region.","PeriodicalId":38461,"journal":{"name":"Central European Journal of International and Security Studies","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135453746","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article presents a case where securitisation of one state in another increased dramatically and exponentially. The scale and intensity of securitisation were unprecedented, as were the range of securitisation actors, and the tone of language of speech acts and nonverbal securitisation acts. This case in question is the securitisation of Russia in Latvia over Russia’s war in Ukraine starting in 2022. Although Russia was securitised by its smaller neighbour before the war, the sudden explosion of securitisation in 2022 differs from any securitisation in recent decades there. Securitisation of Russia is evaluated within the margins of the hypersecuritisation subconcept that purports securitisation beyond the ‘normal’ level, characterised by exaggeration of threats and excessive countermeasures. This article offers a reformulation of the subconcept, omitting the negative connotation built into the initial definition, as well as addresses the transition from securitisation to hypersecuritisation.
{"title":"Small Powers, Geopolitical Crisis and Hypersecuritisation: Latvia and the Effects of Russia’s Second War in Ukraine","authors":"Māris Andžāns","doi":"10.51870/rncc4980","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.51870/rncc4980","url":null,"abstract":"This article presents a case where securitisation of one state in another increased dramatically and exponentially. The scale and intensity of securitisation were unprecedented, as were the range of securitisation actors, and the tone of language of speech acts and nonverbal securitisation acts. This case in question is the securitisation of Russia in Latvia over Russia’s war in Ukraine starting in 2022. Although Russia was securitised by its smaller neighbour before the war, the sudden explosion of securitisation in 2022 differs from any securitisation in recent decades there. Securitisation of Russia is evaluated within the margins of the hypersecuritisation subconcept that purports securitisation beyond the ‘normal’ level, characterised by exaggeration of threats and excessive countermeasures. This article offers a reformulation of the subconcept, omitting the negative connotation built into the initial definition, as well as addresses the transition from securitisation to hypersecuritisation.","PeriodicalId":38461,"journal":{"name":"Central European Journal of International and Security Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48956053","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The central role of mass communication in the construction of crises, threats and enemies was acknowledged decades ago. In those cases when media reporting about crises, threats and enemies is studied, it is predominately done based on the media content from Western liberal democracies. The article broadens the usual framework of research on this topic by empirically studying the securitisation and enmification campaign performed by TV channels of an autocracy through the lens of agenda-setting and framing theories. In other words, this article helps understand how the Russian regime securitises political issues and constructs enemies. In particular, eight weekly news programmes by Russian state-controlled Channel One Russia and RT (former Russia Today) covering the period of the Euromaidan, Annexation of Crimea and the war in Donbas are studied in order to address the question of how the channels’ strategies of setting their agendas and framing the covered events contributed to the construction of a Nazi enemy that has to be fought.
{"title":"Constructing Nazis on Political Demand: Agenda-Setting and Framing in Russian State-Controlled TV Coverage of the Euromaidan, Annexation of Crimea and the War in Donbas","authors":"Alona Shestopalova","doi":"10.51870/fuqi2558","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.51870/fuqi2558","url":null,"abstract":"The central role of mass communication in the construction of crises, threats and enemies was acknowledged decades ago. In those cases when media reporting about crises, threats and enemies is studied, it is predominately done based on the media content from Western liberal democracies. The article broadens the usual framework of research on this topic by empirically studying the securitisation and enmification campaign performed by TV channels of an autocracy through the lens of agenda-setting and framing theories. In other words, this article helps understand how the Russian regime securitises political issues and constructs enemies. In particular, eight weekly news programmes by Russian state-controlled Channel One Russia and RT (former Russia Today) covering the period of the Euromaidan, Annexation of Crimea and the war in Donbas are studied in order to address the question of how the channels’ strategies of setting their agendas and framing the covered events contributed to the construction of a Nazi enemy that has to be fought.","PeriodicalId":38461,"journal":{"name":"Central European Journal of International and Security Studies","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41994736","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：