Ontological Security, Civilian Power, and German Foreign Policy Toward Russia1

Abstract

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.

Clash of Identities

“…6 In the post-9/11 context, it is being used to explain that a state's behavior toward local and global dynamics could be motivated by its anxiety about its self-identity. 7 These studies explain that like humans, states are also rational and social actors that seek continued selfidentity affirmation from other actors. Self-identity is central to ontological security, as it denotes the security of the subjective self as opposed to the physical body.…”

German–Norwegian relations in security and defence: What kind of partnership?

“…Obviously Germany is dependent upon a functioning multilateral order and still has a strong civilian security identity (Maull 2018). This means that Germany defines its security interests within such collective frameworks and as the default and moral way of solving international problems (Eberle and Handl 2020, 48). Hence, the German White Paper on German Security Policy and the Future of the Bundeswehr (Germany, Federal Ministry of Defence 2016, 24–5) underlines Germany’s commitment to ‘maintaining a rules-based international order’ and to ‘deepening European integration and consolidating the transatlantic partnership’.…”

“…It is also interesting due to the differing foreign policy outlooks. Norway has a strong Atlantic security identity, with a security and defence perspective that focuses on the north and west (Lindgren and Græger 2017), while Germany’s far more European-integration-minded security perspective focuses more on the east and west (White 2019; Eberle and Handl 2020).…”

Towards an autonomous European defense? A comparative analysis of French, Polish and German perspectives in the post-Brexit era

“…Hence, Germany's traditional commitment to multilateralism and reluctance for regional hegemony persists (Helwig, 2020;von Weitershausen, 2016). Refusing a realist definition of German power as a "normal" state that seeks selfish interests, Germany defines its national interests at European/regional level and emphasizes "shared responsibility" rather than domination (Eberle & Handl, 2020). Besides, Germany advocates for an inclusive European defense union that would not alienate small European states nor the post-Brexit UK (Billon-Galland & Quencez, 2017).…”