Trust and Decision‐making in Times of Crisis: The EU's Response to the Events in Ukraine

Natorski, Michał; Pomorska, Karolina

doi:10.1111/jcms.12445

Cited by 34 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Relevant literature has been dissecting the events in Ukraine following the Revolution of Dignity, and specifically dealing with the Russia–Ukraine conflict that has been ongoing since the annexation of Crimea by Russia in February–March 2014 (see a Special Issue of the Journal of Common Market Studies (Davis Cross and Karolewski (2017a)); as well as works by Kuzio (2015a, 2015b, 2017); Natorski (2016, 2018; Natorski and Pomorska, 2017); Wolczuk (2016)). Kuzio (2017: 194) argued that the EU’s policies pre-Maidan were ‘constrained by its failure to appreciate that Russia no longer viewed the EU and NATO as different actors and that Russia was opposed to both of their enlargements into its “zone of privileged interests”’ (Kuzio citing Wawrzonek, 2014).…”

Section: Context: Eu Mediation In the Russia–ukraine Conflictmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceptions of EU mediation and mediation effectiveness: Comparing perspectives from Ukraine and the EU

Chaban¹,

Elgström²,

Knodt³

2019

Cooperation and Conflict

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A small but growing literature has started to analyse the European Union (EU) ‘as an effective peacemaker’. We make a contribution to this field by investigating EU mediation effectiveness in the Russia–Ukraine conflict. The focus is on perceptions of effectiveness. Based on information from semi-structured interviews, we compare EU self-images with Ukrainian evaluations of EU mediation efforts. How effective is the EU, including its Member States, deemed to be? What factors are believed to lie behind perceived (in)effectiveness? We concentrate on four such factors, derived from the mediator literature: perceived (im)partiality, coherence and credibility and, finally, evaluations of the EU’s mediation strategies. Both internal and external views singled out EU member states as the most effective actors in current mediation. The role of EU was seen in ambivalent terms by both sides. All the four determinants of mediation effectiveness are discussed in our material, but differ considerably in the degree of attention given to each of them. While (im)partiality is not a factor that is linked to effectiveness in any straightforward way, EU incoherence is associated with inconsistent and weak policies, notably in the Ukraine material.

show abstract

Section: Context: Eu Mediation In the Russia–ukraine Conflictmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceptions of EU mediation and mediation effectiveness: Comparing perspectives from Ukraine and the EU

Chaban¹,

Elgström²,

Knodt³

2019

Cooperation and Conflict

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The pattern across Europe's historical response to crisis of various sorts shows that there is more to this than the cliché implies (Cross 2017). When a crisis is perceived to be particularly severe, new dynamics often emerge within Europe, such as new levels of trust in EU institutions (Natorski and Pomorska 2016), desire for member states to stand together despite initial resistance (Orenstein and Keleman 2016), sense of common identity or rally-around-the-flag effect (i.e. us vs. them), policy innovation (Bicchi 2007;Cross 2017), political will to do more or spend more in reaction to the crisis (Schilde 2016), and so on.…”

Section: Why a Strengthening Of European Boundaries?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Counter-terrorism in the EU’s external relations

Cross

2017

Journal of European Integration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The renewed emphasis on national political boundaries across Europe would seem to go hand-inhand with a weaker external personality for the EU. However, there are several prominent examples of EU leadership that challenge this notion, from the December 2015 UN climate change agreement to common sanctions against Russia to a new Global Strategy. This paper examines a policy area that lies at the intersection of populist outrage and external engagement: counter-terrorism. In the wake of the 2015 and 2016 Paris and Brussels terrorist attacks, the EU has made significant strides in enhancing the external dimension of its counter-terrorism policies, particularly in terms of intelligence sharing, formal and informal diplomacy, and the internalexternal nexus of security. The article argues that major terrorist attacks in 2015-2016 have served as critical junctures of crisis, driving counter-terrorism policies forward and emphasizing the notion of European boundaries beyond any functionalist or securitization explanation.The renewed emphasis on national political boundaries across Europe in the second decade of the 21 st century would seem to go hand-in-hand with a weaker external personality for the EU, as several contributions to this special issue contend (Bellamy and Kröger this issue; Zielonka this issue). However, there are many prominent examples that defy this argument. The EU emerged as the leader in marshaling an ambitious agreement at the UN climate summit in Paris, COP21 (Torney and Cross forthcoming). It has strengthened its relationship with NATO, at the same time as collectively imposing a wide-ranging sanctions regime against Russia (Cross and Karolewski 2016). And it has stood strong in the face of Brexit, even releasing a new Global Strategy and advancing plans for a defense union just days after the referendum (Tocci 2016, Cross 2016). Despite growing voices in some sectors calling for the re-assertion of national political boundaries, I argue that European political boundaries vis-à-vis the outside world are actually becoming stronger. How is the EU able to continue its march towards "ever closer Union" in its external relations while grappling with numerous challenges to integration internally?This special issue understands political boundaries as "those lines of demarcation enforced by a political authority that affect agents' range of options in producing and accessing goods widely understood to be desirable for them in the pursuit of their respective goals." EU integration has fundamentally been about a process that increasingly strengthens the notion of European boundaries over time, especially in terms of political authority, in multiple ways. To address the question of how European political boundaries are getting stronger in terms of external relations, this article focuses on the policy area of counter-terrorism. In the wake of the 2015 and 2016 Da'esh-inspired terrorist attacks in Paris and Brussels, the EU has made

show abstract

“…This included the Baltic republics and Poland, followed by the Nordics, Romania and the UK (Dobbs 2017). At the opposite end of the spectrum, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Slovenia, Portugal and Spain, but also Hungary and Austria (Webber 2019), were inclined to engage with Russia due to burgeoning economic ties, cultural and religious links and/or the absence of recent conflicts (Natorski and Pomorska 2017;Nitoiu 2016). In-between both, key members France and Germany adopted a moderate position.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Capitalizing on these divisions, Russia has attempted to split domestic opinion in EU member states in the hope of obstructing the renewal of sanctions and, more generally, EU foreign policy (Karolewski and Davis-Cross 2017;Natorski and Pomorska 2017). Moscow strengthened bilateral ties with selected EU capitals, supported Kremlin-friendly parties, spread disinformation ahead of elections and imposed counter-sanctions in the form of a food embargo which penalized vulnerable EU economies (Karlsen 2019;Orenstein and Kelemen 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consensus against all odds: explaining the persistence of EU sanctions on Russia

Portela

Pospieszna

Skrzypczyńska

et al. 2020

Journal of European Integration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In response to Russia's actions in Ukraine in 2014, the EU introduced sanctions on Moscow. Despite increasing polarisation among member states after imposition, the sanctions package was consistently renewed. How can sanctions persistence be explained? While scholarly accounts highlight German leadership, commitment to norms, and policymakers' engagement, the EU's ability to uphold the sanctions in the face of uneven support among member states remains puzzling. With the help of a two-level game framework, according to which actors make decisions based on the interplay between the domestic and international levels, we argue that the interaction between the Council and domestic politics helped sustaining the consensus. To illustrate this dynamic, in an exploration of domestic factions in Spain and Poland, two member states displaying opposite attitudes towards Russia, we identify the presence of at least one actor whose preference deviates from the core, thereby facilitating consensus.

show abstract

Trust and Decision‐making in Times of Crisis: The EU's Response to the Events in Ukraine

Cited by 34 publications

References 30 publications

Perceptions of EU mediation and mediation effectiveness: Comparing perspectives from Ukraine and the EU

Perceptions of EU mediation and mediation effectiveness: Comparing perspectives from Ukraine and the EU

Counter-terrorism in the EU’s external relations

Consensus against all odds: explaining the persistence of EU sanctions on Russia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About