No abstract

Recent developments in Europe starting with the Russia-Ukraine conflict and ending with the economic and political instability in Greece have given rise to instability in the European Union. Yet, none of the previous crises could be compared with the crisis concerning the current massive influx of refugees into the EU that challenges both solidarity and responsibility of the member states. In this context, it is extremely important to understand the actual security threats related to the refugee crisis, particularly for the Baltic countries that have linked their security with European Union and the NATO. Particularly in Estonia and in Latvia, the refugee crisis has been presented as a high security matter as possible rejection of the EU-migrant could lead to the country's isolation from the international community, the loss of the NATO security network and its exposure to the security threats from Russia. Alternative decision to accept the refugee quotas could on the other hand create challenges for internal security in terms of legitimacy of national governments and public support to refugee policy. In the light of recent terrorist attacks in France these questions seem even growingly important.

This article analyzes and discusses the objectives of the sanctions implemented by the European Union against Russia and Russian countermeasures against EU member states in 2014-2015, by comparing the official aims with the options expressed in theoretical debates and experiences gained from historical lessons. In principle, the study seeks an answer to the question: what could be realistically achieved as a result of the current form of restricted sanctions and what stays beyond their reach. Methodologically, this article focuses on the evaluation of the ability of theoretical models to explain the logic of anti-Russian sanctions and debates the options of the outcomes of current formation of sanctions in light of theoretical models.

No abstract

This current study aims to assess the credibility of the deterrence posture provided by NATO in avoiding Russia’s potential aggression against the Baltic countries; what could the aggression scenarios look like; what should be done to increase the credibility of NATO’s deterrence strategy and the ability of the Baltic countries to employ additional deterrence instruments. The focus of the analysis is on four components: capability (both nuclear and conventional military capabilities), communication, cohesion, and interdependence/acceptance of norms. In this way, the authors build-up their own framework to cover both the physical capabilities of potential parties to the conflict and behaviouralethical aspects related to the current security environment. The article demonstrates the challenges for the Alliance’s deterrence strategy and makes several suggestions of how to increase the credibility of NATO’s deterrence strategy to avoid Russia’s potential aggression.