THEORIZING SECURITY IN THE EASTERN EUROPEAN NEIGHBOURHOOD: ISSUES AND APPROACHES Editors: Richard Q. Turcsányi, Strategic Policy Institute – STRATPOL, Bratislava; Mendel University in Brno Maryna Vorotnyuk, Central European University, Budapest The editorial team gratefully acknowledge the external reviewers for their help in refereeing the chapters and providing feedback to authors. All rights reserved. Any reproduction or copying of this work is allowed only with the permission of the publisher. Any opinions and conclusions expressed herein are solely those of the authors and should not be construed as representing the opinions or policy of any organization participating in preparing the publication. Supported by the International Visegrad Fund Coordinator: Maryna Vorotnyuk Cover and lay-out: Viktor Belan, Gradient Studio, Slovak Republic Proofreading: HOPE Jazykový servis s.r.o., Czech Republic Printed by: Vistka, Ukraine ISBN 978-80-972526-5-6 (hard copy) EAN 9788097252656 ISBN 978-80-972526-6-3 (PDF) EAN 9788097252663 Bratislava Kyiv 2018 STRATPOL – Strategic Policy Institute – is an independent think tank based in Slovakia with its focus on international relations and security policy. Its activities cover European security, Transatlantic relations, and Eastern Partnership countries. Its research, publications, and events cover issues and developments in Central Europe, Ukraine and South Caucasus, as well as NATO, the United States, and key strategic regions. Its experts have a proven record in strategic decision-making in their respective governments, military, and academia. STRATPOL contributes to the academic debate, shapes public opinion through the media and influences policies by formulating recommendations for foreign and security policy decision-makers. STRATPOL has expanded on the professional basis of the Centre for European and North Atlantic Affairs, securing the continuity of the Centre’s projects and partnerships. Among its achievements are the Panorama of Global Security Environment, a reputable peer-reviewed and indexed publication on international relations; the annual South Caucasus Security Forum, a high-level forum for the exchange of views on security developments in the neighbourhood, held in Tbilisi, Georgia; Summer University for Young Professionals, a high-profile interactive course for young people; and long-term projects on security sector reform and capacity building in Ukraine and Georgia. Strategic Policy Institute – STRATPOL Address: Štúrova 3, 81102 Bratislava, Slovakia Website: http://stratpol.sk/ E-mail: [email protected] Phone: +421 908 893 424 CONTENTS Introduction. Security concept, security studies and security policies in the Eastern European neighbourhood Richard Q. Turcsányi . 4 Conventional military conflicts Tamás Csiki Varga . 16 Separatism and disputed territories (the case of Ukraine) Sergii Glebov . 28 Human (in)security: social and cultural frameworks of analysis Makarychev Andrey . 41 New patterns of securitization in Central and Eastern Europe Aliaksei Kazharski and Clarissa do NascimentoTabosa. .60 New aspects of EU conditionality: the security context Péter Balázs . 82 Defining and analyzing energy security in Central Europe and the EU neighborhood Andrej Nosko . 97 Transnational organized crime (EU externalization of freedom, security and justice in Eastern Neighbourhood countries) Yulia Zabyelina . 109 Theorizing “terrorism” and “hybrid war” Ryszard M. Machnikowski . 128 Challenges of theoretical approaches to cyber security Botond Feledy . 147 About the contributors . 164 INTRODUCTION SECURITY CONCEPT, SECURITY STUDIES AND SECURITY POLICIES IN THE EASTERN EUROPEAN NEIGHBOURHOOD Richard Q. Turcsányi “Power in international politics is like the weather. Everyone talks about it, but few understand it.” (Nye 1990) This is how Joseph Nye started his famous article on soft power back in 1990. Indeed, although it was almost 30 years ago, one may still agree today that even though power is a central concept of political science and related disciplines, its definition, conceptualization, and operationalization can be still seen today as far from sufficient. In other words, we do not know very well what power means and how we can use it to explain the real world development. When it comes to the concept of security, the situation is different, but not so much. On the one hand, similarly to power, security can be seen as an ‘essentially contested’ concept (Gallie 1955-1956). Hence, there will most probably never be a universally accepted definition, conceptualization, and operationalization of security. On the other hand, this should not be seen as a problem in itself. The goal of conceptual analysis within social sciences/ studies should not be to reach a universally accepted understanding of theoretical concepts, rather than to offer guidance on how to explain complex reality using certain simplified patterns. It is then only natural that these patterns will most of the times compete among themselves for they will argue what the important features of reality are that we need to focus on. These competition and arguments are at the very core of scientific progress in the context of (social) reality. The goal of this introductory chapter is primarily to set the stage for the remaining parts of the book which in itself wants to present the reader with a combination of theoretical and practical insights into security, particularly in the Eastern European neighbourhood. To do so, we will, firstly, look into security studies as a specific scientific approach and we will explain how and 4 SECURITY CONCEPT, SECURITY STUDIES AND SECURITY POLICIES IN THE EASTERN EUROPEAN NEIGHBOURHOOD under what conditions it emerged and how it has developed until the present. Following that, secondly, we will focus on the concept of security itself. The attempt here will not be to offer a single binding definition, rather than to present the concept in a pluralistic framework. This is highly important and practically relevant for various understandings of security lead to quite different security policies and broader political responses. Thirdly, subsequent chapters of this book will be summed up and put in context to form a logical narrative of security approaches that the editors of this volume found to be most relevant in the Eastern European neighbourhood, which can be seen as one security complex (Buzan and Waever 2003). The discipline of Security studies Security studies as a specific scientific approach to study more or less everything related to security is generally seen as being part of political science. Although not everyone would agree, Richard Betts (1997) presented one of the easiest delineations of the position of the discipline of security studies with his concentric circles. He sees security studies as a broader discipline to the strategic studies (which focus on how states use military means for achieving their goals), and within strategic studies, he identifies military studies (dealing specifically with the tactical use of force). Although Betts did not do so, we may continue with these circles in an outward direction as well to present security studies as part of international relations (comprising, besides security issues, also economic and other areas), which in turn is part of political science which is a universally accepted stand-alone discipline within social sciences. Security studies as a discipline started to develop (to some extent) independently after the Second World War in the West, mainly in the U.S. Obviously, there had been much relevant thinking and writing before then, but this was the first time when systematic focus started to be directed towards the concept of security, rather than war, defence, etc. Part of the reason why that was the case was the developing bipolar reality of the Cold War fuelled by the existence of nuclear weapons, which made all-out war between the major powers unacceptable to all (Buzan and Hansen 2009). The discipline reached its ‘golden period’ in the 1950s and 1960s, when the academic researchers were able to provide policy makers with useful knowledge to understand and navigate international reality (Williams 2013). Some of the classical concepts were born in this era, including the ‘deterrent Richard Q. Turcsányi 5 theory’ and ‘mutually assured destruction’ doctrine with the appropriate acronym MAD, meaning that both sides are capable of destroying the other even after being attacked first (Wohlstetter 1958). In the U.S., this development was epitomised by Robert McNamara, who was the Secretary of Defence in the Kennedy and Johnston administrations. Indeed, it was civilian experts who became responsible for preserving security, rather than the military, which took up a more limited role, in line with Richard Betts’ (1997) circles presented before. Important changes within security studies started from the 1970s. This was the time of so-called detente and the lowering of tensions between the two superpowers. To some extent, security studies with their traditional strategic concepts took second place, as deterrence became less the programme of the day, instead of developing contacts with the other side (Buzan and Hansen 2009). At the same time, criticism of the positivist approach of the traditional security studies came for instance from the ‘strategic culture’ concept. Researchers working within this new approach were arguing that it is futile to expect every state to behave in the same way - clearly, there are some different