Baltic-Black Sea Regionalisms: Patchworks and Networks at Europe's Eastern Margins

240 Pages·2020·3.287 MB·English

by  Olga Bogdanova, Andrey Makarychev

Olga Bogdanova
Andrey Makarychev Editors
Baltic-Black Sea
Regionalisms
Patchworks and Networks
at Europe’s Eastern Margins
Baltic-Black Sea Regionalisms
Olga Bogdanova Andrey Makarychev
(cid:129)
Editors
Baltic-Black Sea
Regionalisms
’
Patchworks and Networks at Europe s Eastern
Margins
123
Editors
OlgaBogdanova Andrey Makarychev
JohanSkytte Institute of Political Studies JohanSkytte Institute of Political Studies
University of Tartu University of Tartu
Tartu, Estonia Tartu, Estonia
ISBN978-3-030-24877-2 ISBN978-3-030-24878-9 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24878-9
©SpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG2020
Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublisher,whetherthewholeorpart
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
orinformationstorageandretrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,orbysimilarordissimilar
methodologynowknownorhereafterdeveloped.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publicationdoesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfrom
therelevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained
hereinorforanyerrorsoromissionsthatmayhavebeenmade.Thepublisherremainsneutralwithregard
tojurisdictionalclaimsinpublishedmapsandinstitutionalaffiliations.
Disclaimer: This edited volume has been supported by the European Commission under the grant
agreement 2017-2883: Rethinking Regional Studies: the Baltic-Black Sea Connection (586281-EPP-
1-2017-1-EE-EPPKA2-CBHE-JP). This publication reflects the views only of the authors, and the
Commissioncannotbeheldresponsibleforanyusewhichmaybemadeoftheinformationcontained
therein.
ThisSpringerimprintispublishedbytheregisteredcompanySpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG
Theregisteredcompanyaddressis:Gewerbestrasse11,6330Cham,Switzerland
Contents
Introduction: From Sea to Sea and Back: Multi-directional
Regionalism in Search of a Name. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Olga Bogdanova and Andrey Makarychev
Theories, Vocabularies, Concepts
Border Processes in Contemporary Baltic–Black Sea Region:
Between (Re)Bordering and Debordering. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Tomasz Brańka, Łukasz Donaj and Jarosław Jańczak
Ethnopolitics Across Central and Eastern Europe in a State of Flux:
Time for Updating and Upgrading?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Vassilis Petsinis
The Biopolitics of National Belonging in the Baltic–Black
Sea Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Andrey Makarychev and Alexandra Yatsyk
Cultural Diversity in the Area Between the Black and Baltic Seas:
A Tentative Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Eleonora Narvselius
The Baltic–Black Sea Region in Great Powers’ Relations:
The Hard Power Aspect. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Polina Sinovets and Iryna Maksymenko
Trans-national Worlds and Spaces
The Baltic World and Beyond: The View of the Baltic Presidents. . . . . 89
Mindaugas Jurkynas
Finno-Ugric World(s) and “Language Brotherhood” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Anna Kuznetsova
v
vi Contents
State-Led Transnationalism in Eastern and Central Europe:
Understanding the Phenomenon of the “Domestic Abroad”. . . . . . . . . . 131
Yana Volkova
Policy Practices of Cross-/Trans-border Region-(UN)Making
From Intermarium to the Three Seas Initiative—The Implications
of the Polish Orientation Over the Central and Eastern European
Region on Hungarian Foreign Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Andrea Schmidt
Regional Cooperation in Ukrainian and Polish Security Discourse . . . . 169
Oleksii Polegkyi
Polish-Russian Disputes Over History as an Important Factor
in Their Mutual Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
Przemysław Furgacz
Ukraine in the Limelight
Regionalism and Spillover Effects: Case of Ukraine. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
Markiyan Malskyy, Nataliya Antonyuk, Marianna Gladysh
and Oksana Krayevska
“Russian World” in the Black Sea Region: The Case of Ukraine . . . . . 225
Olga Brusylovska and Sergii Glebov
Public Diplomacy in the Countries of Central and Eastern Europe:
Experiences for Ukraine. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
Mykola Trofymenko and Anastasiia Trofymenko
Introduction: From Sea to Sea
and Back: Multi-directional
Regionalism in Search of a Name
Olga Bogdanova and Andrey Makarychev
Abstract This introductory chapter explains the idea of this edited volume, its
structure, and contained individual contributions. It also positions the idea of the
Baltic–Black Sea trans-regional connections at the intersection of different disci-
plines and approaches to international relations, comparative politics, and political
sociology.Theco-editorsdiscusstheBaltic–BlackSeanexusfromtheviewpointof
thepolitical dynamics at theEU’seasternmargins and againstthebackdrop ofthe
discussions on a post-liberal international order.
(cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1)
Keywords Baltic Sea region Black Sea region Borders Security
Although the notion of a Baltic–Black Sea region has been used for over a decade
now, the existing academic literature is short of a systematic and comprehensive
conceptualization of the spatial connection between its two regional components.
Both the Baltic Sea and Black Sea regions were foci of in-depth academic studies
whose authors looked at them from the viewpoint of projecting EU’s normative
powerandestablishing institutionalframeworksfor regionalgovernance (Malksoo
2006) exemplified, inparticular, by the Council of Baltic Sea States and the Black
SeaEconomicCooperation.Withintheframeworkoftheliberalinternationalorder,
both regions were expected to embody the possibilities embedded in EU’s neigh-
borhood policy (Buscaneanu 2016) and aimed at investing in region-making at
Europe’smarginsthroughsharingpositiveexperiencesofcross-bordercooperation
in such areas as environmental protection, infrastructural development, twin cities,
transportation, and engagement with civil societies. Projection of EU’s principles,
rules,andevenvalueswasakeytowhatmightbedubbed“normativeregionalism”
(Makarychev 2018) promoted by the EU as an intrinsic element of the post-1991
liberal consensus. The Baltic Sea region is usually considered as the most suc-
cessfulintegration projectin the post-ColdWarEurope, which is explained by the
fortunate conflation of EU’s policies and resources on the one hand and Nordic
O.Bogdanova(cid:1)A.Makarychev(&)
UniversityofTartu,Tartu,Estonia
e-mail:[email protected]
©SpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG2020 1
O.BogdanovaandA.Makarychev(eds.),Baltic-BlackSeaRegionalisms,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24878-9_1
2 O.BogdanovaandA.Makarychev
countries’ commitments to share their experiences of region-making with their
Baltic neighbors on the other (Kuusik and Raik 2018).
However, the gradual transformative dynamics driving Europe away from the
expectations of the 1990s toward a post-liberal type of international society has
variousspatialtransfigurationsinEuropeasoneofitseffects(Skleparis2016).The
vastareastretchingfromtheBaltictotheBlackSearegionsseemstobeoneofthe
fastest changing parts of the continent, generating new challenges to the liberal
European order and questioning some of its normative assumptions. It is these
changes that served as a starting point for launching this edited volume as a col-
lective endeavor to address new trends and developments popping up in this
specific and highly volatile part of Europe.
Paradoxically, what is known as the Baltic–Black Sea region (or “area,” or
“zone”) is a trans-regional and cross-border space still in search for its name(s).
Indeed, many of the most inspiring concepts so dear to the hearts of political
geographersandscholarsincriticalgeopolitics(Koch2016,807–814)—liminality,
marginality, peripherality, in-betweenness, hybridity—can undoubtedly be applied
to its countries. Moreover, the structure of this space looks rather ambiguous and
paradoxical given its declaratory centrality and de facto marginality vis-à-vis the
EU’s core. Indeed, after the fall of the Berlin Wall countries nowadays located at
the EU’s eastern margins have rebranded themselves from Eastern to Central
Europe—a proud self-definition that made sense only under the condition of rec-
ognizing the European subjectivity of neighboring countries constituting the
western“belt”ofthepost-SovietareaandprobablyRussiaitself.Thereassertionof
“centrality”inEurope,withallits(geo)politicalsymbolism,impliedtheacceptance
of Poland’s, Hungary’s, and Romania’s eastern neighbors as fully fledged yet the
geographically easternmost Europeans, but it is exactly at this juncture that some
issuescroppedup:Asseenfromthevantagepointofhegemonicdiscoursesinsome
of Central European countries, Ukraine, Belarus, and Moldova are often perceived
as subalterns with limited political subjectivity rather than full-time European
partners in their own right.
Againstthisbackdrop,theBaltic–BlackSeaspaceappearstobeamoreinclusive
concept, opting more for solidarity among countries that historically were victim-
ized and subjugated to the wills of their stronger neighbors than for establishing
symbolic hierarchies along the center-periphery lines. Instead of an east–west
contradistinction inherent in the Central European regional self-awareness, the
Baltic–BlackSeaaxisencompasses—thoughstillhypothetically—agreater variety
of participants, leaving the boundaries intentionally open to the entire Europe’s
south and even beyond.
Nonetheless, this spatial hierarchy is there since the very semantics of this
trans-regional construct envisages some kind of political momentum spreading
fromthenorthtothesouth,frommoreEuropeanizedBaltic/Nordiccountriestothe
BlackSeaandtheSouthCaucasus.Indeed,inthepost-Soviet BlackSeacountries,
there is a clearly articulated attention to—and demand for—learning from the best
Balticpracticesineducation,civilsocietydevelopment,pubicservice,financialand
economicsustainability.Bythesametoken,inGeorgia,forexample,theBlackSea
Introduction:FromSeatoSeaandBack:Multi-directional… 3
regionisseenas apathway toEurope away fromidentity-based connotationswith
the South Caucasus (Gamkrelidze 2019).
However,ifwelookatthisspace-in-the-makingfromasecurityperspective,the
picture will be different, and we will need to speak of a Black Sea–Baltic Sea
region, since many of the most challenging military threats to the entire Europe
emanated from the Black Sea and adjacent areas (Karagiannis 2014, 200–214).
TheseincludetheRusso-GeorgianWarof2008,theannexationofCrimeain2014
and its further militarization, the Russian–Turkish confrontation of 2015, and a
series of Russia-provoked incidents in the Sea of Azov in 2018 and 2019. To this,
one might add such non-military/soft security challenges as human trafficking and
migration flows. Therefore, security optics reverses the direction of the liberal
spillover dynamics from the Baltics to the Black Sea and establishes another
hierarchyofspacesbasedondifferentiationbetweeninsecurity-producingareasand
their potential or actual proliferation to the entire Europe.
Therefore,theregionalspaceweintendtodiscussinthiseditedvolumeoughtto
be dubbed the Baltic–Black Sea/Black Sea–Baltic (BBS-BSB) regionalism, which
inmanyrespectsreversestheconventionallogicofterritorialityandidentifiesnew
dimensions in regional settings that might be important elements of a post-liberal
European order. This is exactly how we propose to read this book—as multiple
explorationsofthepoliticalspaceinfluxthatcanbetraversedandtranscendedfrom
northtosouthandintheoppositedirectionandthatalsoembedssomemeaningful
components of east–west and west–east distinction(s).
Thebookaimstointroducenewdimensionstoregionalstudies,particularlythe
Baltic–Black Sea connection, and relate them to domestic and foreign policies of
major international actors in the region. It contains three clusters. The first one is
aimed at introducing a variety of conceptual approaches that might be useful in
course of exploring the intricacies and complexities of the Baltic–Black Sea/Black
Sea–Baltic regional spaces. Tomasz Brańka, Łukasz Donaj, and Jarosław Jańczak
discuss the interconnected dynamics of border making and unmaking in the
BBS-BSB region, underlining military, symbolic and functional aspects of bor-
dering and debordering. Vassilis Petsinis in his contribution explicates the impor-
tance of ethnopolitical framework for analyzing events and developments in this
area overburdenedwithvariousmanifestationsof ethnic and religious nationalism,
which makes possible drawing lines of comparisons with such regions as the
Balkans. Andrey Makarychev and Alexandra Yatsyk offer a different research
vocabulary—that one of biopolitics—as an explanatory frame that gives nuanced
explanations of the rise of national conservatism and right-wing politics all across
the BBS-BSB region (as well as, of course, much beyond it). Eleonora Narvselius
proposesaregionalapplicationofculturalapproachtothediversityofurbanspaces
and their historical legacies that include a strong post-colonial element. Polina
Sinovets and Iryna Maksymenko take us back to the world of power (geo)politics
where major military actors project their policies onto regional spaces and thus
define security dimension of regionalism.
The second cluster looks at practices of political communication and policy
interactionbetweenmajoractorsintheBBS-BSBregionalspace,includingbilateral
4 O.BogdanovaandA.Makarychev
andmultilateralrelations. MindaugasJurkynasventurestogive his account onthe
BalticWorldasseenfromtheperspectiveofpoliticalelitesofLatvia,Lithuania,and
Estonia. Anna Kuznetsova applies the concept of the “world” to the Finno-Ugric
cultural,educational,andlinguisticties,anduncoversasetofpoliticalundercurrents
in some of them. Yana Volkova presents her vision of the concept of “domestic
abroad”andtheconcomitantcitizenshippoliciesintheBBS-BSBregion,usingthem
asillustrativemanifestationsofthephenomenonoftransnationalism.AndreaSchmidt
discusseshowPolish–Hungarianrelationsmightbeapproachedfromtheperspective
oftheIntermariumandtheThreeSeasInitiativeprojects.OleksiiPolegkyiuncovers
thediversityofnationstate-basedsecuritypoliciesintheBBS-BSBregion,usingas
referencepointscasestudiesonUkraineandPoland.PrzemysławFurgaczunpacks
thevarietyofmemorypolitics,referringtoPolish–Russianconflictualinterpretations
ofhistoryandtheclashingnarrativesaboutthepast.
ThethirdclusterofthebookisstructuredasaForumsection,withthreedifferent
contributionslookingatthemosttopicalissuesincontemporaryUkraine,acountry
whosefutureiscentraltotheentireBBS-BSBregion.MarkiyanMalskyy,Nataliya
Antonyuk, Marianna Gladysh, and Oksana Krayevska apply the concept of spil-
lover effects to identify and assess the changes in Ukrainian institutional system
caused by the Association Agreement with the EU. Olga Brusilovska and Sergii
Glebov critically engage with the Russian World discourse, interpreting it as a
doctrinethatjustifiedtheannexationofCrimeaandthewarinDonbas.Mikolaand
Anastasiia Trofimenko contributed to discussion by underlining the importance of
Ukraine’s public diplomacy that in many respects is modeled on previous experi-
ences of this country’s western neighbors.
Many of these individual contributions either complement or critically engage
with each other. Thus, there are different approaches to the concept of “civiliza-
tionalwords”—“Baltic”(MindaugasJurkynas),“Finno-Ugric”(AnnaKuznetsova),
and “Russian” (Olga Brusilovska and Sergii Glebov)—that overlap in the
BBS-BSB area. What the reader may see in each of them is different modes of
political operationalization of cultural constructs, which in the case of the Russian
world projection has evident security repercussions.
When it comes to issues of identities and subjectivities, there is some compe-
tition between ethnopolitical (Vassilis Petsinis) and biopolitical (Andrey
Makarychev and Alexandra Yatsyk) approaches since both aim to explain the
intermingledphenomenaofnationalism,conservatism,andright-wingpopulism.In
the meantime, the biopolitical and ethnopolitical theorizing conflates in such
specific cases as, for instance, citizenship policies (Yana Volkova) that are used as
an instrument of biopower grounded in the idea of taking care of groups of
co-ethnicswhoresidebeyondnationalborders.Asimilarconflationisnoticeablein
juxtaposing the biopolitical analysis of the phenomenon of national populism by
Makarychev andYatsyk with Anna Kuznetsova’sstoryofFinno-Ugricidentitythat
includes narratives of ethno-linguistic authenticity used by radical groups as an
instrument of political mobilization.
Coming back to the current debates on a post-liberal international order
(Peterson 2018), one may see an ample space in it for concepts discussed and