версия для печати

Кризис как практика:
феномен рутинизации эскалации отношений России и США

Неклюдов Н. Я.,

Кандидат политических наук, МГИМО МИД России, Москва, Россия, neklyudov.n.ya@my.mgimo.ru

elibrary_id: 984594 |

Байков А. А.,

Кандидат политических наук, МГИМО МИД России, Москва, Россия, a.baykov@inno.mgimo.ru

elibrary_id: 621264 |

Щёкин А. С.,

МГИМО МИД России, Москва, Россия, as9416@yandex.ru

Дата поступления статьи: 2023.06.05. Принята к печати: 2023.08.30


DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2023.06.06
EDN: NEXGKI

Рубрика: Тема номера: практики глобального кризиса и механизмы политической эволюции

Правильная ссылка на статью:

Неклюдов Н. Я., Байков А. А., Щёкин А. С. Кризис как практика: феномен рутинизации эскалации отношений России и США. – Полис. Политические исследования. 2023. № 6. С. 66-82. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2023.06.06. EDN: NEXGKI (на английском языке)

Авторы выражают свою благодарность Игорю Истомину, Александру Чехову, Иверу Нойманну и Теду Хопфу. Авторы также признательны Анн Кроули-Виньо за помощь в редактировании статьи.

Аннотация

Авторы открывают дискуссию о проблеме влияния перспективы реального международного кризиса на онтологическую безопасность вовлеченных игроков. Выдвигается гипотеза, что парадокс онтологической безопасности состоит в способности достичь ощущения большей безопасности через эскалацию и вероятность международного кризиса. В статье совмещены два подхода, получившие достаточное освещение в литературе о международных отношениях, теории практик и теории онтологической безопасности. Объединяя их, авторы пробуют развить исходное допущение Дженнифер Митцен о том, что “даже опасные практики могут обеспечить онтологическую безопасность”. Привнося интеллектуальный багаж практического поворота в исследования онтологической безопасности, авторы рассматривают кризис Договора о ликвидации ракет средней и меньшей дальности, выдвигая аргумент о том, что этот кризис способствовал достижению игроками искомой онтологической безопасности, даже несмотря на возрастающие риски физической небезопасности. Реконструируя хронологию событий, авторы показывают, как рутинизация дипломатических практик и острой риторики привела стороны к обоюдному пониманию нерелевантности Договора.

Ключевые слова

практики, онтологическая безопасность, ДРСМД, Россия, США.

 Текст статьи

Addison, B. (2009). A feel for the game – a Bourdieuian analysis of principal leadership: a study of Queensland secondary school principals. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 41(4), 327-341. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620903211554

Adler, E. (2008). The spread of security communities: communities of practice, self-restraint, and NATO’s post-cold war transformation. European Journal of International Relations, 14(2), 195-230. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066108089241

Adler, E., & Pouliot, V. (2011). International practices. International Theory, 3(1), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.1017/S175297191000031X

Adler-Nissen, R., & Pouliot, V. (2014a). Power in practice: negotiating the international intervention in Libya. European Journal of International Relations, 20(4), 889-911. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066113512702

Akchurina, V., & Della Sala, V. (2018). Russia, Europe and the ontological security dilemma: narrating the emerging Eurasian space. Europe-Asia Studies, 70(10), 1638-1655. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2018.1546829

Andersen, M.S., & Neumann, I.B. (2012). Practices as models: a methodology with an illustration concerning wampum diplomacy. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 40(3), 457-481. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829812441848

Arbatov, A. (2020). Saving strategic arms control. Survival, 62(5), 79-104. https://doi.org/10.1080/00396338.2020.1819640

Batyuk, V. (2019). The collapse of the Treaty on the elimination of intermediate-range missiles: what next? Russia and America in the 21st Century, (Special Issue). https://doi.org/10.18254/S207054760005250-2

Bicchi, F. (2014). Information exchanges, diplomatic networks and the construction of European knowledge in European Union foreign policy. Cooperation and Conflict, 49(2), 239-259. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836713482871

Bjola, C., & Kornprobst, M. (2007). Security communities and the habitus of restraint: Germany and the United States on Iraq. Review of International Studies, 33(2), 285-305. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210507007516

Borgen, C.J. (2009).  The language of law and the practice of politics: great powers and the rhetoric of self-determination in the cases of Kosovo and South Ossetia. Chicago Journal of International Law, 10(1), 1-33.

Bourdieu, P. (1992). The logic of practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Bueger, C., & Gadinger, F. (2015). The Play of International Practice. International Studies Quarterly, 59(3), 449-460. https://doi.org/10.1111/isqu.12202

Buzhinsky, E. (2014). Does the INF Treaty Have a Future? Security index: a Russian journal on international security, 20(2), 89-93.

Carlson, L.J. (1995). A theory of escalation and international conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 39(3), 511-534. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002795039003006

Cohen, A. (2013). The genesis of Europe: competing elites and the emergence of a European field of power. In Transnational Power Elites (pp. 103-120). London: Routledge.

Croft, S., & Vaughan-Williams, N. (2017). Fit for purpose? Fitting ontological security studies “into” the discipline of international relations: towards a vernacular turn. Cooperation and Conflict, 52(1), 12-30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836716653159

Ejdus, F. (2018). Critical situations, fundamental questions and ontological insecurity in world politics. Journal of International Relations and Development, 21(4), 883–908. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41268-017-0083-3

Fearon, J.D. (1994). Signaling versus the balance of power and interests: an empirical test of a crisis bargaining model. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 38(2), 236-269. http://www.jstor.org/stable/174295

Georgakakis, D., & Rowell, J. (Ed). (2013). The field of Eurocracy. London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137294708

George, A.L. & Smoke, R. (1974). Deterrence in American foreign policy. New York: Columbia University Press.

Ghoshal, D. (2016). China and the INF Treaty. Comparative Strategy, 35(5), 363-370. https://doi.org/10.1080/01495933.2016.1240982

Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory. London: Macmillan Education UK. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-16161-4

Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-Identity. Self and society in the late Modern age. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Gustafsson, K., & Krickel-Choi, N.C. (2020). Returning to the roots of ontological security: insights from the existentialist anxiety literature. European Journal of International Relations, 26(3), 875-895. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066120927073

Gutkowski, S. (2012). The British secular habitus and the war on terror. Journal of Contemporary Religion, 27(1), 87-103. https://doi.org/10.1080/13537903.2012.642737

Hansen, L. (2006). Security as practice. Discourse analysis and the Bosnian war. New York, London: Routledge.

Homolar, A., & Scholz, R. (2019). The power of Trump-speak: populist crisis narratives and ontological security. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 32(3), 344-364. https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2019.1575796

Hopf, T. (2018). Change in International Practices. European Journal of International Relations, 24(3), 687-711. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066117718041

Huth, P., & Russett, B. (1988). Deterrence failure and crisis escalation. International Studies Quarterly, 32(1), 29. https://doi.org/10.2307/2600411

Huysmans, J. (1998a). Security! What do you mean? European Journal of International Relations, 4(2), 226-255. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066198004002004

Huysmans, J. (1998b). The question of the limit: desecuritisation and the aesthetics of horror in political realism. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 27(3), 569-589. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298980270031301

Kauppi, N., & Madsen, M.R. (2014). Fields of global governance: how transnational power elites can make global governance intelligible. International Political Sociology, 8(3), 324-330. https://doi.org/10.1111/ips.12060

Kearn, D.W. (2012). Facing the missile challenge U.S. Strategy and the future of the INF Treaty. https://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG1181.html

Kinnvall, C. (2004). Globalization and religious nationalism: self, identity, and the search for ontological security. Political Psychology, 25(5), 741-767. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00396.x

Kinsella, D., & Russett, B. (2002). Conflict emergence and escalation in interactive international dyads. The Journal of Politics, 64(4), 1045-1068. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2508.00162

Kroenig, M. (2015). Facing reality: getting NATO ready for a new Cold War. Survival, 57(1), 49-70. https://doi.org/10.1080/00396338.2015.1008295

Kühn, U. (2019). Between a rock and a hard place: Europe in a post-INF world. The Nonproliferation Review, 26(1-2), 155-166. https://doi.org/10.1080/10736700.2019.1593677

Kühn, U., & Peczeli, A. (2017). Russia, NATO, and the INF Treaty. Strategic Studies Quarterly, 11, 66-99.

Kühn, U., Shetty, S. & Sinovets P. (2017). Europe s nuclear woes: mitigating the challenges of the next years. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 73(4), 245-254. https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.2017.1338022

Kustermans, J. (2016). Parsing the practice turn: practice, practical knowledge, practices. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 44(2), 175-196. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829815613045

Larsen, J.A. (2019).  NATO nuclear adaptation since 2014: the return of deterrence and renewed Alliance discomfort. Journal of Transatlantic Studies, 17(2), 174-193. https://doi.org/10.1057/s42738-019-00016-y

Leduc, R. (2021). The ontological threat of foreign fighters. European Journal of International Relations, 27(1), 127-149. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066120948122

Levine, D.J. (2017). “These days of Shoah”: history, habitus, and realpolitik in Jewish Palestine, 1942-1943. In Political Power and Social Theory (Political Power and Social Theory, Vol. 32) (pp. 99-125). Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0198-871920170000032005

Little, R. (2011). Britain s response to the Spanish Civil War. In E. Adler, & V. Pouliot (Ed.), International Practices (pp. 174-199). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511862373.011

Lupovici, A. (2012). Ontological dissonance, clashing identities, and Israel s unilateral steps towards the Palestinians. Review of International Studies, 38(4), 809-833. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210511000222

March, J.G., & Olsen, J.P. (2008). The logic of appropriateness. The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199548453.003.0034

Mérand, F. (2010). Pierre Bourdieu and the birth of European defense. Security Studies, 19(2), 342-374. https://doi.org/10.1080/09636411003795780

Mitzen, J. (2006). Ontological security in world politics: state identity and the security dilemma. European Journal of International Relations, 12(3), 341-370. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066106067346

Neumann, I.B. (2002). Returning practice to the linguistic turn: the case of diplomacy. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 31(3), 627-651. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298020310031201

Neumann, I.B., & Pouliot, V. (2011). Untimely Russia: hysteresis in Russian-Western relations over the past millennium. Security Studies, 20(1), 105-137. https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2011.549021

Pifer, S., Kulesa L., Bahr E., Neuneck G., Troitskiy M. & Kroenig M. (2015). Forum: NATO and Russia. Survival, 57(2), 119-144. https://doi.org/10.1080/00396338.2015.1026090

Pouliot, V. (2008). The logic of practicality: a theory of practice of security communities. International Organization, 62(02), 257-288. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818308080090

Pouliot, V. (2010a). International security in practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511676185

Pouliot, V. (2010b). The materials of practice: nuclear warheads, rhetorical commonplaces and committee meetings in Russian-Atlantic relations. Cooperation and Conflict, 45(3), 294-311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836710377487

Pouliot, V. (2020). Historical Institutionalism meets practice theory: renewing the selection process of the United Nations Secretary-General. International Organization, 74(4), 742-772. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002081832000020X

Pouliot, V., & Cornut, J. (2015). Practice theory and the study of diplomacy: a research agenda. Cooperation and Conflict, 50(3), 297-315. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836715574913

Ringmar, E. (2014). The search for dialogue as a hindrance to understanding: practices as inter-paradigmatic research program. International Theory, 6(1), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1752971913000316

Risse, T. (2000). “Let s argue!”: communicative action in world politics. International Organization, 54(1), 1-39. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2601316

Steele, B.J. (2005). Ontological security and the power of self-identity: British Neutrality and the American Civil War. Review of International Studies, 31(3), 519-540. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40072087

Sushentsov, A.A., & Wohlforth, W.C. (2020).  The tragedy of US–Russian relations: NATO centrality and the revisionists spiral. International Politics, 57(3), 427-450. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-020-00229-5

Suzuki, A., & Loizides, N. (2011).  Escalation of interstate crises of conflictual dyads. Cooperation and Conflict, 46(1), 21-39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836710396770

The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IIS). (Ed.). (2020). Asia-Pacific regional security assessment 2020. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003104728

Voeten, E. (2011). The practice of political manipulation. In E. Adler, & V. Pouliot (Ed.), International Practices (pp. 255-279). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511862373.015

Wendt, A.E. (1987). The agent-structure problem in international relations theory. International organization, 41(3). https://doi.org/10.1017/S002081830002751X

Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philisophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Zarakol, A. (2010). Ontological (in)security and state denial of historical crimes: Turkey and Japan. International Relations, 24(1), 3-23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117809359040

Zolotarev, P. (2008). Missile defense challenges, Russia in global affairs. https://eng.globalaffairs.ru/articles/missile-defense-challenges/

Zwolski, K. (2014). How to explain the transnational security governance of the European Union? JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 52(4), 942-958. https://doi.org/101.1111/jcms.12121 

Возможно, Вас заинтересуют: