Strategic Culture and Foreign Policy of Ukraine

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE OF UKRAINE ODESA MECHNIKOV NATIONAL UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE 0 1 'SOCIAL SCIENCES STRATEGIC CULTURE AND FOREIGN POLICY OF UKRAINE Edited by I. Koval, O. Brusylovska, and V. Dubovyk ''< 7 1865 V ODESA ONU 2017 Koval, Igor, Brusylovska, Olga, and Dubovyk, Volodymyr (eds.), Strategic Culture and Foreign Policy of Ukraine (Odesa: Odesa Mechnikov National University Press, 2017. -2 6 2 p.). Odesa Mechnikov National University Press is a department o f the Odesa Mechnikov National University. Odesa Mechnikov National University Dvoryanska, 2 65082 Odesa Tel: +38/048/723-52-54 Fax: +38/048/723-35-15 Email: [email protected] http : //onu. edu .ua/en/ Published in Ukraine by Odesa Mechnikov National University Press Elisavctynska, 12, Odesa, 65082. Published with support by Fulbright Ukraine Proofread by Amber Nickell and Elizabeth Rezun All rights reserved. No part o f this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing o f Odesa Mechnikov National University. You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer. ISBN 978-617-689-239-7 © Odesa Mechnikov National University Press 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION...............................................................................5 Igor Koval, Olga Brusylovska, and Volodymyr Dubovyk CHAPTER 1. STRATEGIC CULTURE OF UKRAINE AS THE RESEARCH INSTRUMENT OF THE UKRAINIAN FOREIGN POLICY......................................... 7 Olga Brusylovska and Polina Sinovets CHAPTER 2. STRATEGIC CULTURE OF UKRAINE AND ITS NON-NUCLEAR STATUS.................................................... 20 Polina Sinovets CHAPTER 3. EURO - ATLANTIC INTEGRATION OF UKRAINE AND RELATIONS WITH NATO .............................. 33 Sergii Glebov CHAPTER 4. UKRAINE - EUROPEAN UNION RELATIONS THROUGH THE PRISM OF STRATEGIC CULTURE......................................................................54 Iryna Maksymenko and Denys Kuzmin CHAPTER 5. UKRAINE'S FOREIGN POLICY IN THE BLACK SEA R E G IO N ............................................................... 76 Sergii Glebov CHAPTER 6. FACTORS AND EVOLUTION OF UKRAINIAN-RUSSIAN RELATIONS.......................................... 96 Olga Brusylovska CHAPTER 7. US - UKRAINE RELATIONS (1991-2017)............... 116 Volodymyr Dubovyk CHAPTER 8. CHINESE - UKRAINIAN RELATIONS.................. 135 Mikhail Pokas CHAPTER 9. UKRAINIAN - TURKISH RELATIONS 151 Yulia Tarasyuk CHAPTER 10. LEVANT COUNTRIES AND EGYPT IN THE POLICY OF UKRAINE....................................... 1 66 Irina Zubarenko and Dmitri/ Poble CHAPTER 11. UKRAINE'S POLICY TOWARDS THE COUNTRIES OF CENTRAL EASTERN EUROPE................. 186 Alina Zadorozlinia CHAPTER 12. THE SOUTH-EASTERN EUROPE AND WESTERN BALKANS IN THE UKRAINIAN FOREIGN PO L IC Y .....................................................................................200 Iryna Maksymenko and Yulia Maystrenko CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................222 Igor Koval, Olga Brusylovska, and Volodymyr Dubovyk LITERATURE......................................................................................226 ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS.....................................................257 INTRODUCTION The state’s strategic culture is an integrated system of symbols reflected in language, analogies, myths, metaphors, and daily rituals. This system cre ates firm strategic goals and/or preferences for the role of power (economic, military, and political) in the interstate relations. Strategic culture relates to shared beliefs and patterns of behaviour, which grew out of common expe riences and adopted narratives (oral and written). These change collective identity and relations with other groups, determining the accepted objectives and methods for fulfilling tasks in the realm of security. Contemporary political scientists and scholars of international relations are paying more attention to the study of strategic culture since there are more and more international problems related to the fact that the actors “speak different languages”, meaning that the same phenomenon is inter preted differently in different cultures; one side often cannot comprehend the viewpoint of its opponent. In order to foresee future developments and to conduct strategic planning, the politicians and scholars, who are involved in the decision-making process, must be able to account for sudden changes in cultural symbols and behavioural habits, adjustments which were already made by the political elites of various states. The question of how identity influences the strategic choices of a state is timely for contemporary politi cal scientists. So, the main notions that are most frequently connected to the analysis of strategic-cultural discourses are the following: history, national character, national memory, culture, religion, faith, customs, ethnicity, mul- ticulturalism, behavioural habits, socialization, political thought, values, morals and law, ceremonies, and myths. The main factors that influence strategic culture are: 1) geography, re sources, climate, military and technical organization; 2) political system; 3) historical experience, the views of political elites, the views of various gen erations, myths and symbols, “the main book” (religious or other). The schol ars of the “Odessa School of International Studies” have ignored the problem of studying strategic culture. A decisive factor in choosing our methodology for studying Ukrainian foreign policy - the subject of our long-term study - was the fact that “strategic culture” is not one of the classical theories. On the contrary, it is a new research program that has a high degree of compatibility with political realism at the same time. We see that “strategic culturalists” and “realists” usually set goals which mutually enrich and complement one another. “Realists” are trying to “explain” (cause - effect) categories like power (“force”, “might”), national interest, balance of power, “the bounds of international systems”, “centres of power”, “division of power among sub 5 jects”, “spheres of influence”, and “rules of the game”. “Culturalists” attempt to understand (context, interpretation). At the same time, security undoubt edly remains the focus of both schools; security in its broader meaning. It not only includes military-political aspects, but also economic and ideological. The latter component increases in importance within the context of the con temporary phenomenon, which is often referred to as “the Ukrainian crisis” in the literature. However, in our opinion, it is in fact a proxy conflict, with significance for the entire system of European relations’ development. This monograph reflects on the evolution of Ukraine’s foreign policy in the areas, which were studied by the professors of the Department of Internation al Relations of the Odesa Mechnikov National University. The monograph is structured in twelve chapters, each one dedicated to a specific dimension of our country’s foreign policy. 6 CHAPTER I STRATEGIC CULTURE OF UKRAINE AS THE RESEARCH INSTRUMENT OF THE UKRAINIAN FOREIGN POLICY Olga Brusylovska and Polina Sinovets The idea that a strategic choice is influenced by decision-makers’ values and assumptions, which are deeply rooted in their states’ histories, is not a new one. The concept of strategic culture (or as it can be better called “a scientific- research program”) is quite popular all over the world, and it is important for understanding the “security portrait” of a state. To some extent, this definition is connected with the notion of political culture, but it is narrower, as it is directed at the analysis of “hard power” in the state’s worldview. Jack Snyder was the first to use the term in late 1970s; he defined strategic culture as “the sum total of ideals, conditional emotional responses, and pat terns of habitual behaviour that members of the national strategic community have acquired through instruction or imitation and share with each other with regard to nuclear strategy”.1 Therefore, Snyder defined this phenomenon as the framework of the general worldviews, attitudes, and behaviour patterns, and became the first to attempt an interpretation of the military conduct of the state using its cultural and historical background.2 Alastair Ian Johnston claims that a strategic culture is stable if the advan tages’ rating is stable. The high correlation between strategic advantages and actual strategic behaviour is an indicator of the application of a strategic culture concept. Johnston also pointed out that analysts should keep in mind that there might be a difference between declared and secret doctrines when they study the concept of strategic culture.3 Other writers have a rather more sceptical attitude of the concept of strategic culture. One of the most obvious features, which could be criticised, is that the concept is almost impossible to quantify. As Nicholas Rengger has observed, the term “culture” “seems to represent everything that good, positivistic trained international relations specialists should hate. It is an inevitably loose concept and is open to endless reinterpretation”.4 There is a danger that the concept is so loose that it can explain everything and therefore nothing. Yet, despite these obvious objections, the notion of strategic culture per sists in the literature on international relations. This suggests

Load more