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.

Many researchers assert that p op ular culture warrants greater attention from international relations scholars. Yet work regarding the effects of p op ular culture on international relations has so far had a marginal imp act.

This article analyses the ascent of 'Russian hybrid warfare' (RHW) as a notion that transformed the understanding of national security in the Czech Republic in the short period of 2014-2016. It argues that the emergence of RHW as a specifically understood prime security threat was the result of contingent and often unruly social interactions across different settings, rather than a linear and centralised response to Russia's actions. To capture this process, the concept of 'assemblage' is introduced and then defined as a temporary constellation of a variety of different actors, both public and private. Building on research interviews and documents produced in the RHW field, the authors then proceed in three steps. First, they chronologically trace the gradual emergence of the Czech RHW assemblage from a variety of different actors-bureaucrats, NGOs, academics, journalists-after Russia's attack on Ukraine in 2014. Second, they unpack the inner workings of the assemblage by identifying the key actors and asking who did the assembling and how. Third, they look at how different actors were able to reinforce and/or transform their identities by being part of the assemblage, with an emphasis on the effects this had for the distinction between the public and the private.

No abstract

In this article we argue that in their quest for parsimony and through their denial of human agency, international relations scholars often endorse deterministic theories. The field of international relations suffers greatly for its devotion to excessive theoretical generalization. In rejecting the more pluralistic methodology of early international relations work, scholars may produce superficially valid predictive theories. Yet these theories rarely grant deep insight into why actual states behave as they do. Because of this, they provide little guidance for statesmen. While we do not advocate the complete rejection of any of the major approaches in the field, we argue that international relations scholars should reorient their work to account for the way leadership can overcome the constraints of structure. We suggest the field strive actively to embrace complexity and foster a greater epistemological modesty than it currently demonstrates. Polity (2010) 42, 156 -184.