Final Exam Flashcards
Briefly describe recent developments in the EU’s Common European Security and Defence
Policy (CESDP) concerning defence industrial cooperation, specifically in PESCO, EDF, and
CARDs.
- Recent developments in the European Union’s Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) regarding defense industrial cooperation in Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO), the European Defence Fund (EDF), and Coordinated Annual Review on Defence (CARD) show a trend toward deeper integration and a push for strategic autonomy.
Here are some key points:
Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO)
Launched in 2017, PESCO involves 25 EU member states collaborating to develop and enhance European defense capabilities.1
●
PESCO acts as a framework for joint projects, encompassing areas like military mobility, capability development, and training.2
●
It aims to improve the EU’s ability to respond to crises and contribute more effectively to international security.3
European Defence Fund (EDF)
●
The EDF, established in 2017, provides financial support for collaborative defense projects, promoting innovation and competitiveness in the European defense industry.4
●
The EDF has a budget of €8 billion for 2021-2027.5
●
A substantial portion of the budget is allocated to key areas, including:
○
Air Combat Systems: Investing in next-generation fighter jets and drone technologies, aiming to create fifth- and sixth-generation air combat systems.6
○
Missile Defense: Collaborative efforts to ensure Europe has advanced defensive measures against missile threats.7
○
Munitions Production: The EDF has been mobilized to address ammunition shortages, supporting increased production capacity for artillery shells and other critical ammunition.8
Coordinated Annual Review on Defence (CARD)
●
CARD is a mechanism for improving the coordination of national defense planning among EU member states.9
●
It involves data collection and analysis by the European Defence Agency (EDA), leading to recommendations for collaborative capability development.9
Challenges and Future Outlook
While the EU has made progress in defense industrial cooperation, it still faces challenges:
●
Military Mobility: The EU lacks a seamless system for moving troops and equipment across borders, hampering rapid response capabilities.10
●
Dependence on Non-EU Suppliers: EU countries often rely heavily on defense equipment from non-EU manufacturers.10
To address these issues, the EU is working on initiatives such as:
●
The European Defence Industrial Strategy: Aims to increase intra-EU defense trade and procurement from European manufacturers.7
●
The EU’s Common Munitions Programme: Works to ensure sufficient stockpiles and production capabilities for essential defense supplies within the EU.8
These recent developments demonstrate the EU’s commitment to strengthening its defense capabilities and achieving greater strategic autonomy through enhanced cooperation and a more integrated European defense industry.
9) Compare the institutional authority, the structure and the legal personality of the Western European Union (WEU) and the European Defence Community (EDC)!
- The Western European Union (WEU) and the European Defence Community (EDC) were both post-World War II initiatives aimed at strengthening Europe’s defense, but they differed in their institutional authority, structure, and legal personality.
1. Institutional Authority: - The WEU was a defensive alliance formed in 1954, building on the Treaty of Brussels (1948). Its authority was primarily intergovernmental, meaning decisions were made collectively by member states without transferring sovereignty to a supranational body.
- The EDC, proposed in 1950, aimed to create a supranational European army. It would have had significant authority, as member states would cede control over their military forces to a unified European structure. However, it failed due to a lack of political consensus, particularly in France.
2. Structure: - The WEU had a simpler structure with a Council of Ministers (representing
national governments) as its primary decision-making body, supported by a Parliamentary Assembly that advised but had limited influence. - The EDC was designed with a more ambitious structure, including a common European army, a single budget, and a shared command, overseen by a European Defence Minister. This structure reflected its supranational vision, which was never realized.
3. Legal Personality: - The WEU had legal personality, allowing it to conclude treaties and engage in international cooperation. However, its role diminished after NATO became the primary defense organization for Europe.
- The EDC never acquired legal personality because it was never ratified. Its failure underscored the reluctance of European states to fully integrate their defense policies.
8) Describe the political and military institutions of the NATO. Why was the NATO the most successful security organisation of the Cold War era?
Political Institutions:
* North Atlantic Council (NAC): The main political decision-making body, consisting of representatives from all member states. It meets regularly and can convene at the ambassadorial, ministerial, or heads-of-state level. Decisions in the NAC are made by consensus, meaning all members must agree.
* Secretary General: The chief administrative officer and spokesperson of NATO, responsible for coordinating the alliance’s activities and facilitating discussions among members.
* Committees: Various specialized committees address issues like economics, partnerships, and emerging threats, providing expertise and policy recommendations.
2. Military Institutions:
* Military Committee: Composed of the Chiefs of Defense from all member
states, it is NATO’s highest military authority. It provides strategic guidance and advice to the NAC.
* Supreme Allied Commanders: Two key commands oversee NATO’s military operations:
* Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR): Based in Belgium, responsible for planning and executing NATO’s military operations in Europe.
* Supreme Allied Commander Transformation (SACT): Based in the U.S., focusing on the modernization and transformation of NATO’s forces.
* Integrated Command Structure: NATO maintains a unified military command that coordinates joint operations and ensures interoperability among member states’ forces.
Why Was NATO the Most Successful Security Organization of the Cold War Era?
- NATO was the most successful security organization of the Cold War era because it effectively united its member states under a shared purpose: defending against the threat of Soviet expansion. Built on the principle of collective defense outlined in Article 5 of its founding treaty, NATO created a strong sense of mutual responsibility among its members. This principle acted as a powerful deterrent, ensuring that any aggression against one member would trigger a unified military response from all.
7) Describe the changing nature of security threats after the end of the Cold War era.
During the Cold War, security was primarily focused on the rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union, with the main concern being military power and the threat of nuclear war. It was a period dominated by state-centric security issues, where superpowers and their alliances (NATO and the Warsaw Pact) were the central players.
However, with the Cold War’s end, global security became more complex and diverse. Instead of focusing on conflicts between major powers, attention shifted to new and unconventional threats. One of the most noticeable changes was the rise of non-state actors like terrorist groups, organized crime syndicates, and cybercriminals.
Another significant shift was the growing recognition of economic, environmental, and societal security issues. Problems like climate change, resource scarcity, pandemics, and migration began to challenge the traditional understanding of security.
6) What is the Regional Security Complex Theory?
The Regional Security Complex Theory (RSCT) is a framework developed by Barry Buzan and Ole Wæver within the field of International Relations to explain how security is organized and distributed across regions. It argues that the dynamics of security are not globalized but are instead concentrated in distinct geographical regions where states’ security concerns are closely interconnected.
According to RSCT, a Regional Security Complex (RSC) is formed when the security of one state in a region is so interlinked with the security of others that they cannot be meaningfully analyzed in isolation. This interconnectedness stems from shared borders, historical conflicts, cultural ties, and economic or political relations. For example, security developments in the Middle East, such as conflicts between Iran and Saudi Arabia, affect neighboring countries, making the region an RSC.
- Describe the current security situation at the South China Sea.
The South China Sea (SCS) is a significant geopolitical flashpoint due to overlapping territorial claims, military buildups, and unresolved legal disputes among several Southeast Asian nations and China.
- Territorial Disputes: China claims nearly 80% of the SCS via its Nine-Dash Line, lacking legal support. Other claimants include Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, and Taiwan, particularly concerning the Spratly and Paracel Islands.
- Legal Disputes and International Law: The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) defines maritime zones that influence resource rights. The 2016 Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling stated that China’s Nine-Dash Line has no legal basis, and China has rejected this ruling.
- Military Buildup and Security Threats: China has transformed reefs into militarized outposts, enhancing its military reach and threatening freedom of navigation. The U.S. conducts Freedom of Navigation Operations to challenge China’s claims.
4.Environmental and Economic Impacts: China’s island-building has inflicted ecological damage and threatens biodiversity. The SCS is rich in fishing grounds and oil reserves, making control over these resources a key concern.
- Current Diplomatic and Security Climate: Recent tensions have escalated with naval incidents and obstructions by Chinese vessels. ASEAN nations, supported by the U.S., pursue diplomatic solutions but struggle against China’s assertiveness.
Conclusion: The SCS is marked by territorial claims, legal disputes, military confrontations, and environmental degradation, with ongoing challenges to regional and global security due to China’s actions.
5- What is “human security” and what is the R2P?
Human security
A concept that prioritizes the safety, rights, and well-being of individuals over state security. It aims to protect people from both violent and non-violent threats, ensuring freedom from threats to life and dignity. This universal approach focuses on prevention, addressing root causes instead of relying on military intervention. It involves governments, NGOs, and local communities and encompasses various dimensions, including economic, health, environmental, and political security, with the goal of enhancing survival and improving daily life.
Responsibility to Protect (R2P)
The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is a principle asserting that the international community must prevent and respond to mass atrocities like genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. It emphasizes that state sovereignty includes the obligation to protect citizens; if a state fails to do so, the international community should intervene. R2P encompasses three main responsibilities: preventing crises, reacting to urgent human needs (including sanctions and military intervention in extreme cases), and aiding in recovery post-conflict.
Military intervention under R2P is considered only for just causes, such as large-scale loss of life, and must follow precautionary principles, including last resort and proportionality. Authorization from the UN Security Council is necessary for legitimacy.
R2P has been applied in various situations, including NATO’s intervention in Libya (2011), international actions in Côte d’Ivoire (2011), diplomatic interventions in Kenya (2007-2008), and ongoing peacekeeping in South Sudan and the Central African Republic.
While R2P focuses on severe human rights violations and state failure, human security addresses broader threats to individual well-being. Both aim to protect individuals and uphold their safety and dignity.
- Summarize the nature of military interventions in Afghanistan (2001), Iraq (2003), and in Libya (2011).
The military interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya were driven by distinct geopolitical goals but shared themes of regime change, counterterrorism, and international legal debates. Each intervention had unique contexts, legal justifications, and long-term consequences.
1. U.S.-Led Intervention in Afghanistan (2001-2021)
Context:
The intervention in Afghanistan was a direct response to the September 11, 2001 attacks by al-Qaeda, harboured by the Taliban regime. The U.S. launched Operation Enduring Freedom to eliminate terrorist networks and stabilize the region.
Legal Justification:
UN Security Council Resolutions 1368 and 1386 recognized the terrorist threat and endorsed international action.
U.S. Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) allowed broad military engagement against terrorist groups.
Military Strategy:
Initially focused on airstrikes, special forces deployment, and support for the Northern Alliance, a coalition opposed to the Taliban.
International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) was established to stabilize the country.
Outcome:
Despite some initial success, the conflict prolonged due to Taliban resurgence, weak state institutions, and widespread corruption.
The U.S. withdrawal in 2021 led to the Taliban’s rapid takeover, ending America’s longest war.
2. U.S.-Led Intervention in Iraq (2003-2011)
Context:
The U.S. justified the invasion of Iraq based on alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) and Iraq’s supposed ties to terrorism, particularly al-Qaeda. Iraq’s leader, Saddam Hussein, was accused of violating multiple UN Security Council resolutions, including Resolution 1441, which mandated disarmament.
Legal Justification:
UNSC Resolution 678 (1990) and Resolution 687 (1991) were cited to revive authorization for military action after Iraq’s alleged non-compliance.
The U.S. Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq (2002) provided domestic legal cover.
Military Strategy:
Operation Iraqi Freedom began with airstrikes (“shock and awe”) followed by a ground invasion involving U.S. and coalition forces (e.g., the UK, Poland, South Korea).
After Saddam’s removal, the U.S. faced intense insurgency, sectarian violence, and the rise of militant groups like al-Qaeda in Iraq, which evolved into ISIS.
Outcome:
Iraq’s post-war reconstruction faced significant failures due to mismanagement, de-Ba’athification, and disbanding of the Iraqi military.
The war severely destabilized the region, causing long-term humanitarian and political crises.
3. NATO-Led Intervention in Libya (2011)
Context:
The intervention in Libya was framed as a humanitarian mission under the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, following Muammar Gaddafi’s violent crackdown on anti-government protests during the Arab Spring.
Legal Justification:
UN Security Council Resolution 1973 authorized “all necessary measures” to protect civilians, excluding ground occupation.
Military Strategy:
NATO imposed a no-fly zone, conducted airstrikes, and enforced an arms embargo. The operation supported Libyan rebels, eventually leading to Gaddafi’s fall and death.
Outcome:
Libya descended into political chaos due to a power vacuum, weakened institutions, and the rise of armed militias.
The country fractured into rival governments, while external powers like Turkey, Russia, and Egypt intervened, fueling ongoing conflict.
Conclusion
While each intervention had distinct motivations—counterterrorism in Afghanistan, regime change in Iraq, and humanitarian protection in Libya—all resulted in protracted instability. Legal justifications were often contested, and the long-term consequences reshaped regional and global geopolitics.
- What are the security and political guarantees needed to end the conflict in Ukraine?
Ending the war in Ukraine requires a comprehensive framework of enforceable security, political, and economic guarantees backed by international agreements, credible enforcement mechanisms, and global cooperation. These guarantees must address Ukraine’s defense capabilities, territorial integrity, economic recovery, and international legal protections.
1. Military Security Guarantees
Defensive Military Aid: Continued provision of advanced weapons systems such as Patriot missile systems, NASAMS, and long-range artillery to maintain Ukraine’s defense capabilities.
Collective Defense Commitments: NATO-style guarantees modelled after Article 5, even if Ukraine does not gain full NATO membership. Defence pacts involving key NATO and EU allies could bolster deterrence.
Rapid Reaction Forces: Deployment of international rapid response units in Ukraine or neighbouring countries to counter potential Russian aggression.
2. Economic and Energy Security
Post-War Reconstruction Aid: Comprehensive international aid packages to rebuild Ukraine’s infrastructure and economy, like a modern Marshall Plan.
Energy Security Measures: Integration into European energy grids, reducing reliance on Russian gas through new energy partnerships and renewable energy projects.
3. Diplomatic and Political Guarantees
Non-Aggression Pacts: Legally binding agreements, signed by Russia, Ukraine, and major international guarantors like the US, EU, and China, committing to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and borders.
UN or OSCE Monitoring Missions: Deployment of peacekeeping missions to enforce ceasefires, monitor borders, and ensure compliance.
Security Council Oversight: A UN Security Council resolution providing international guarantees for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
4. Territorial Integrity Safeguards
Demilitarized Zones: Creation of demilitarized areas along contested borders monitored by international bodies.
International Border Recognition: Legal agreements reaffirming Ukraine’s internationally recognized borders, including Crimea, subject to future negotiations.
5. Economic Sanctions as Leverage
Conditional Sanction Relief: Gradual easing of sanctions on Russia, linked to its compliance with withdrawal agreements and ceasefire terms.
Sanction Snapback Mechanisms: Automatic reimposition of sanctions if Russia violates agreements, ensuring continued pressure.
6. NATO and EU Integration Pathways
Accelerated Membership Pathways: Establishing a timeline for Ukraine’s NATO and EU membership, fast-tracking its integration into Euro-Atlantic structures.
Enhanced Partnership Programs: Expanding Ukraine’s cooperation with NATO and the EU through security, defense, and intelligence-sharing agreements.
7. Neutrality with Guarantees (If negotiated)
Neutral Status: Ukraine could consider adopting a neutral status similar to Austria’s or Finland’s (pre-NATO membership), provided it is supported by robust international guarantees against future aggression.
International Treaty on Neutrality: Major powers, including the US, EU, Russia, and China, could sign a treaty committing to Ukraine’s territorial integrity while ensuring military neutrality.
- Summarize Russia’s war in Ukraine from a geostrategic perspective, outlining its strategic objectives.
Russia’s war in Ukraine is driven by complex geostrategic goals centered on political, territorial, security, and economic objectives. These ambitions reflect Russia’s broader desire to reassert influence over its former Soviet neighbors and resist Western geopolitical expansion.
1. Political Objectives:
- Regime Change: Russia aimed to overthrow Ukraine’s pro-Western government to install a pro-Russian regime, ensuring Ukraine’s alignment with Moscow and preventing Western integration.
- Blocking NATO and EU Membership: Russia sought to deter Ukraine’s NATO and EU aspirations by destabilizing the country and supporting separatist regions.
2. Territorial Objectives:
- Annexation of Crimea (2014): Securing Crimea allowed control over the Black Sea Fleet and expanded naval influence.
- Control of Eastern Ukraine (Donbas): Supporting separatists aimed to create Russian-controlled territories, undermining Ukraine’s sovereignty.
- Land Corridor to Crimea: Military efforts focused on establishing a direct land link from Russia to Crimea for logistics and territorial consolidation.
3. Security Objectives:
- Buffer Zone Creation: Controlling Eastern Ukraine serves to create a buffer against perceived Western military expansion, particularly from NATO.
- Protection of Russian-Speaking Populations: Russia frames its military interventions as protection for Russian-speaking minorities in Ukraine.
4. Economic Objectives:
- Resource and Industrial Control: Controlling Eastern Ukraine’s industrial base and resources enhances Russia’s energy dominance and economic leverage.
Conclusion:
Russia’s actions in Ukraine are driven by geostrategic goals aimed at reshaping the regional power balance, reflecting historical ambitions and immediate strategic calculations.
- What are the implications of international sanctions for Russia’s military capabilities in the war in Ukraine?
International sanctions imposed on Russia have targeted its military capabilities, economy, and key industries, including defense, technology, and energy. While sanctions have constrained Russia’s war-making ability, several challenges have limited their full effectiveness.
Supply Chain Disruptions and Military Industry Shortages: Sanctions have blocked Russia’s access to essential components like semiconductors, disrupting military production of advanced weaponry, including hypersonic missiles and aircraft. Consequently, Russia resorts to sourcing supplies from less advanced countries like Iran and North Korea and has begun cannibalizing civilian aircraft for parts.
Sanctions Impact: Russia’s oil and gas revenue, nearly US$218 billion in 2022, has significantly declined due to EU sanctions prohibiting Russian oil imports and exports. A US$60 per barrel price cap has led to losses of about €160 million daily. Although alternative buyers like India and China are emerging, trade complexities have impacted global oil supply chains.
Economic and Fiscal Impact: Early sanctions were managed effectively by Russia due to the Bank of Russia’s strategies, but economic pressures are mounting with declining energy exports, inflation spikes, and budget deficits forcing cuts in military spending.
Effectiveness and Limitations of Sanctions: While sanctions have caused setbacks in Russia’s military capabilities, issues like under-compliance and trade through non-cooperative states diminish their overall effectiveness.
Conclusion: International sanctions have disrupted Russia’s industrial capabilities and oil revenue, hampering advanced weapon production. Yet, Russia’s fiscal strategies and reliance on rogue states help sustain its military efforts, albeit at a reduced capacity. The long-term success of its war campaign will depend on strict enforcement and expansion of sanctions.
- How does International law interpret the legality of secession of the Crimea?
Under international law, Crimea’s secession is considered illegal due to violations of the principles of territorial integrity, sovereign equality, and the prohibition of the use of force. The referendum conducted under military occupation lacked legitimacy and was declared invalid by the international community. Therefore, Crimea legally remains part of Ukraine despite its current occupation by Russia.
4. Right to Unilateral Secession
International law recognizes the principle of self-determination, allowing peoples to choose their political status. However, this right is balanced against the principle of territorial integrity, which prevents states from being divided without consent.
Circumstances When Secession May Be Legal:
Secession is considered lawful if one or more of the following conditions are met:
The region is subject to decolonization.
Secession is allowed by the national constitution.
The territory was occupied or annexed after 1945.
The secessionist group qualifies as a “people” under international law, facing oppression or denial of rights.
The parent state commits flagrant human rights violations against the group.
No other legal remedies are available.
In Crimea’s case:
Crimea is not subject to decolonization.
Secession is not allowed by Ukraine’s constitution.
The Russian population in Crimea is not recognized as a separate “people” under international law.
No evidence suggests systematic human rights violations by Ukraine against the Russian population.
2. The Crimean Referendum of 2014
Parliament Decision: Crimea’s Parliament called for a referendum on secession on March 6, 2014.
Referendum Options: Voters could choose to join Russia or return to Crimea’s 1992 Constitution, maintaining autonomy within Ukraine.
Violation of Ukrainian Sovereignty: The referendum occurred under Russian military occupation, violating Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
3. International Legal Violations
UN Charter, Article 2(4): Prohibits the use of force against another state’s territorial integrity. Russia’s military intervention breached this rule.
Helsinki Final Act (1975): Ensures the inviolability of borders, a principle Russia had previously committed to.
Budapest Memorandum (1994): Russia, along with the U.S. and the UK, guaranteed Ukraine’s borders in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons. Annexing Crimea violated this agreement.
4. International Recognition and Legal Status
UN General Assembly Resolution 68/262 (March 27, 2014): Declared the Crimean referendum invalid and reaffirmed Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Supported by 100 UN member states, this resolution reflects a broad international consensus.
Legal Status: Despite Russia’s de facto control, Crimea remains de jure part of Ukraine under international law.
- What is the definition of asymmetrical/hybrid warfare?
Asymmetrical Warfare involves conflicts where opposing forces differ significantly in military strength and tactics. Weaker parties use unconventional methods like guerrilla warfare, terrorism, and cyberattacks to counter stronger adversaries. Examples include insurgencies and cyber operations targeting critical infrastructure.
In U.S. defense strategies, the concept gained prominence after the Gulf War (1991) and was further emphasized after the 9/11 attacks, which highlighted the need to counter-terrorism. The U.S. developed counterinsurgency (COIN) strategies for Iraq and Afghanistan, advanced technological capabilities with drones for precision strikes, and enhanced special operations forces for counterterrorism.
Hybrid Warfare combines conventional tactics with non-conventional approaches, including cyber operations and disinformation, causing ambiguity in conflicts. An example is Russia’s actions in Ukraine.
At the strategic level, it involves balancing brute force and coercion, while operationally, it focuses on how opponents contest ground and employ concealment. Key characteristics include the duration of firefights, proximity to civilians, and distinguishing combatants from non-combatants.
Asymmetrical and hybrid warfare are complementary; the former often involves non-state actors, while the latter includes both state and non-state actors, leveraging unconventional strategies to exploit the weaknesses of stronger opponents.
- What are the main challenges that the EU faces regarding the current crisis in Ukraine? How does the DCFTA relate to crisis?
Challenges the EU Faces Regarding the Current Crisis in Ukraine
Security and Geopolitical Risks: Russia’s military aggression, hybrid warfare tactics, and destabilization of EU borders create constant security threats
Humanitarian and Migration Crisis: Millions of Ukrainian refugees strain EU social welfare systems, requiring humanitarian aid and long-term resettlement plans
Energy Security and Economic Strain: The war disrupted Russian gas supplies, forcing the EU to diversify energy imports amid rising energy prices and inflation
Political and Policy Fragmentation: EU member states differ on military aid, sanctions, and diplomacy, complicating unified action and long-term policy coordination
Sanctions and Diplomatic Challenges: Sustaining economic sanctions against Russia tests EU political unity and economic resilience
The DCFTA’s Role in the Ukraine Crisis
Key Provisions of the Association Agreement:
Trade Liberalization: The agreement established a free trade area, aiming to remove 99.1% of customs duties on Ukrainian exports and 98.1% of duties on EU goods. Ukrainian sectors like agriculture and industry gained substantial tariff reductions, boosting exports
Regulatory Harmonization: Ukraine committed to aligning its technical regulations, standards, conformity assessments, and market surveillance systems with EU standards. This required incorporating relevant EU acquis into Ukrainian legislation, demanding extensive legal, administrative, and institutional reforms
Institutional Reforms: Ukraine pledged to create a transparent administrative system capable of enforcing EU-aligned policies, including customs and trade facilitation, trade in services, and financial market regulations
Geopolitical Consequences:
Economic Realignment: The DCFTA reduced Ukraine’s economic reliance on Russia, shifting its trade toward the EU. This undermined Russian efforts to integrate Ukraine into its Eurasian Economic Union, a competing economic bloc
Russian Opposition: Viewing the DCFTA as a direct challenge to its influence, Russia imposed economic sanctions on Ukraine and supported separatist movements in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine
Trigger for the Crisis: The 2014 Euromaidan protests, sparked by Ukraine’s government suspending the DCFTA’s signing under Russian pressure, escalated into political turmoil, leading to Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the ongoing war in Eastern Ukraine
- How would you summarize Russia’s role in the European energy security?
Russia has historically played a critical role in shaping European energy security, dominating natural gas, oil, and uranium supplies through an extensive network of pipelines and state-owned energy companies.
1. Dominance in Energy Supply
Natural Gas: Russia has consistently been the EU’s largest gas supplier. In 2012, Russian gas made up 24% of the EU’s total gas imports, with some countries like Lithuania, Estonia, and Finland relying on it entirely (100%). In 2016, Gazprom, Russia’s state-controlled energy giant, exported 246 billion cubic meters (bcm) of gas, much of it to Europe.
Oil and Uranium: Russia supplied 27% of the EU’s uranium for nuclear energy and significant volumes of crude oil, especially through its major oil pipelines
2. Major Russian Pipelines Supplying Europe
Gas Pipelines:
Nord Stream & Nord Stream 2: Subsea pipelines transporting gas from Russia to Germany via the Baltic Sea. While Nord Stream 1 became operational, Nord Stream 2 was halted in 2022 due to EU sanctions following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Yamal-Europe Pipeline: Runs from Western Siberia to Germany via Belarus and Poland.
Blue Stream: Directly connects Russia to Turkey through the Black Sea.
South Stream (cancelled): Planned to bypass Ukraine but scrapped due to EU opposition and the annexation of Crimea in 2014.
Bratstvo (Brotherhood) Pipeline: Transports Russian gas through Ukraine to various EU countries.
MEGAL Pipeline: Moves Russian gas from Czech and Austrian borders to Germany and France.
Gazela Pipeline: Carries Russian gas through the Czech Republic to Germany
Oil Pipelines:
Druzhba Pipeline (Friendship Pipeline): The world’s longest oil pipeline, transporting Russian crude oil through Ukraine to Hungary and other European countries, reinforcing Russia’s position as a major oil supplier
3. Strategic and Geopolitical Impacts
Supply Vulnerabilities: Europe’s reliance on Russian energy has caused repeated crises, especially during geopolitical disputes like the 2009 Russia-Ukraine gas conflict.
Political Leverage: Russia has leveraged its energy exports to exert political influence, using supply interruptions as a bargaining tool.
EU’s push for diversification and renewable energy development has reshaped this relationship, reducing Russian energy’s influence over Europe.
- What are the challenges to the EU energy diversification strategy?
Geopolitical Risks: The EU relies on politically unstable regions like Russia, the Middle East, and North Africa for energy. Historical supply disruptions, such as the 2009 Russia-Ukraine gas crisis, highlight this vulnerability.
Infrastructure Gaps: Limited LNG terminals and insufficient pipeline interconnectivity hinder diversification. Expanding these facilities is costly and time-consuming.
Market and Economic Factors: High energy import costs (EUR 1 billion/day) and volatile global prices challenge sustainable energy diversification.
Policy Fragmentation: EU member states have different energy mixes and national strategies, complicating unified policy-making.
Environmental Concerns: Balancing fossil fuels, nuclear energy, and renewables remains politically sensitive and environmentally challenging.
The nabucco plan: The original plan to supply Europe from the region and reduce dependency.
Why did it fail?
* Russian diplomacy: Nabucco would have done more for the diversification of gas supplied and lessening of dependence than TANAP & TAP
* Divided EU: no unanimous agreement on Nabucco for a long time
* No energy supplier found – Iran, Turkmenistan, Egypt and Iraq all pulled out
* Azerbaijan & Turkey are behind TAP & TANAP, the pipelines will increase their geopolitical significance, and the decision was made by Azerbaijan
* Nabucco was a bigger project, dropping demand for natural gas made it less economically viable
* TAP & TANAP: smaller number of transit countries → smaller costs and political risks
4- Enumerate the traditional security theories and give detail two of them.
Traditional security theories include realism, liberalism, security dilemma, and collective security.
These theories were developed during a time of frequent interstate wars, with the aim of maintaining state sovereignty, territorial integrity, and national power. States often pursue alliances, arms races, and other cooperative measures to enhance their security.
The security dilemma: refers to a situation where actions taken by a state to improve its own security inadvertently threaten other states, leading to an arms race and increased insecurity for all. It arises from the uncertainty about other states’ intentions in an anarchic system. Defensive realists like Kenneth Waltz claim that states aim to maintain a balance of power, while offensive realists like John Mearsheimer argue that great powers seek to maximize their power for survival. This dilemma illustrates how attempts to enhance security can lead to greater instability.
Interdependence theory: suggests that as states become more interconnected economically, politically, and socially, the costs of conflict increase, reducing the likelihood of war. This mutual dependency encourages cooperation as states recognize the high costs of disrupting relationships.
- What are the key priorities of the EU Energy Policy and the Energy Union?
EU energy policy:
* Secure energy supplies to ensure the reliable provision of energy
whenever and wherever needed;
* to ensure that energy providers operate in a competitive environment that ensures affordable prices for homes, business, and industries
* energy consumption to be sustainable, through the lowering of greenhouse gas emissions, pollution, and fossil fuel dependence.
EU energy union (strategy), 2015:
Security, solidarity and trust: Diversifying Europe’s sources of energy and ensuring energy security through solidarity and cooperation between Member States.
A fully-integrated internal energy market: Enabling a free flow of energy throughout the EU through adequate infrastructure and without any technical or regulatory barriers – an efficient way to secure supply and give consumers the best energy deal.
Energy efficiency: Energy efficiency first - improved energy efficiency will reduce our dependence on energy imports, reduce emissions and drive jobs and growth.
Climate action - decarbonizing the economy: An ambitious climate policy is integral to creating the Energy Union. Actions include the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), strong but fair national targets for sectors outside the ETS to cut greenhouse gas emissions, a roadmap towards low-emission mobility and an energy policy which makes the EU world leader in renewables. The EU is committed to a quick ratification of the Paris Agreement, an ambitious new global climate change agreement approved in Paris in December 2015.
Research, innovation and competitiveness: Supporting breakthroughs in low-carbon and clean energy technologies by prioritizing research and innovation to drive the transition of the energy system and improve competitiveness.
- What are the key challenges to non-proliferation efforts in the context of agreements like ABM, INF, CFE, and START?
- Geopolitical Tensions and Changing Alliances
Challenge: Shifting international power dynamics and the emergence of new regional threats can complicate non-proliferation efforts.
Example: The collapse of the Soviet Union and the subsequent rise of Russia, China, and other regional powers changed the security landscape, rendering some of the agreements (e.g., INF Treaty, signed in 1987, between the US and the Soviet Union) less relevant as new strategic concerns emerged.
Impact: Countries may withdraw from or undermine arms control agreements due to evolving security concerns, as seen with the U.S. withdrawal from the INF Treaty in 2019, citing Russian violations.
2014: US accused Russia of violating the treaty by developing and deploying the
9M729 (SSC-8) missile, which the US claimed exceeded INF range limits.
2019 The US under President Donald Trump announced its withdrawal, citing Russian
non-compliance.
Russia denied the allegations but also suspended its participation.
– Treaty officially ended in August 2019.
– Raised concerns about a renewed arms race, particularly with the development of intermediate-range missiles by China, which was not bound by the treaty.
Emerging Security Dilemmas:
* Proliferation of missile defense systems and intermediate-range missiles by multiple countries.
* Potential for deployment of intermediate-range missiles in Europe and Asia, escalating regional security risks. - Technological Advancements and New Weapon Systems
Challenge: Rapid advancements in technology, particularly in missile defense, hypersonic weapons, and cyber warfare, challenge the relevance and effectiveness of existing treaties.
Example: The ABM Treaty aimed to limit the development of missile defense systems, but the development of more advanced missile defense technologies (e.g., THAAD, Aegis) and emerging threats like hypersonic missiles complicate efforts to prevent missile proliferation.
Impact: New technologies may fall outside the scope of existing treaties, allowing states to pursue weapons development without breaching the terms of older agreements. - Verification and Compliance Issues
Challenge: Ensuring compliance with the terms of arms control agreements is difficult due to verification challenges and the potential for cheating or clandestine activities.
Example: The INF Treaty faced problems with verification due to the difficulty in detecting violations related to ground-launched missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers.
Impact: Non-compliance can go undetected for years, weakening the treaty’s credibility and making enforcement difficult. For example, Russia’s alleged violations of the INF Treaty led to its eventual collapse. - Unilateral Withdrawals and Treaty Abandonment
Challenge: States can unilaterally withdraw from or abandon treaties if they believe the agreement no longer serves their national interests.
Example: The ABM Treaty was terminated by the U.S. president GeorgeW. Bush in 2002, arguing that the development of missile defense systems was crucial to counter threats from countries like North Korea and Iran.
Also, it was perceived ageing due to changing security dynamics after the Cold War; Russia strongly opposed the move, warning it would destabilize strategic balance. The US pursued missile defense technologies, which contributed to worsening US-Russia relations.
Impact: Unilateral withdrawals undermine the stability and predictability that arms control agreements are intended to provide. - Regional Security Concerns
Challenge: Regional security threats often lead countries to pursue nuclear or conventional weapons outside the framework of multilateral arms control agreements.
Example: The development of nuclear weapons by countries like North Korea and Iran is driven by regional security concerns and the desire for deterrence, bypassing existing treaties like the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Impact: Regional security dynamics often create incentives for countries to build up their military capabilities, especially nuclear and missile systems, leading to proliferation despite international efforts. - Non-Signatory States and Rogue Actors
Challenge: States that are not parties to arms control agreements, or those that act outside the international norm (e.g., North Korea), continue to develop and deploy weapons, undermining global non-proliferation goals.
Example: North Korea’s development of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, despite international condemnation and efforts to enforce non-proliferation through the NPT and various UN sanctions.
Impact: Countries outside of treaties often face fewer international repercussions for pursuing weapons programs, which weakens the effectiveness of global non-proliferation regimes. - Political and Domestic Pressures
Challenge: Domestic political pressures and national security concerns can drive states to abandon or refuse to implement arms control agreements.
Example: The START Treaties faced challenges in the U.S. and Russia due to domestic political opposition to arms reductions, with concerns about weakening national defense capabilities.
Impact: Leaders may prioritize national security over international commitments, particularly if arms control agreements are viewed as limiting the ability to modernize or deploy advanced weapons.
The New START Treaty, a pivotal arms control agreement between the United States and Russia, is set to expire on February 5, 2026. As of November 2024, the prospects for its renewal appear uncertain due to several developments:
* Russia’s Suspension of Participation: In February 2023, President Vladimir Putin announced the suspension of Russia’s participation in the New START Treaty, citing concerns over U.S. support for Ukraine. This suspension has raised questions about the future of the treaty and the broader arms control framework.
* Statements on Non-Renewal: In October 2024, reports indicated that Russia would not sign a new treaty to replace New START upon its expiration. An unidentified senior Russian source stated, “We suspended our participation in the START-3 treaty because of Washington’s actions. And we will not sign a new agreement.”
* U.S. Considerations: In June 2024, U.S. officials suggested the possibility of deploying additional strategic nuclear weapons to counter growing threats from Russia and China. This indicates a shift towards a more competitive approach to arms control, potentially complicating future treaty negotiations.
* Calls for Broader Inclusion: Russia has emphasized the need to include other nuclear-capable states in any future arms control agreements, reflecting concerns over the nuclear arsenals of countries like China, France, and the United Kingdom
8. Lack of Multilateral Cooperation
Challenge: Some agreements, such as the CFE Treaty, suffer from a lack of multilateral participation or commitment, particularly in the context of new and emerging powers.
Example: The CFE Treaty, which limited the number of conventional weapons in Europe, became less effective as new NATO members joined and as Russia’s security concerns grew in the 2000s.
Impact: Non-participation by key countries (e.g., China, India, or non-NATO countries) weakens the universality of arms control agreements, leaving loopholes and gaps in the treaty framework.
To alleviate concerns that either alliance would launch a flanking maneuver against the other, the treaty placed specific limits on the number of tanks, ACVs, and artillery for Europe’s southern and northern flanks, including portions of Russia.
Moscow has consistently sought to abolish the flank zone as it considers the limits to be unfair because it is the only country (aside from Ukraine) that has specific limits on where it can deploy TLE in its own territory. Russian concerns
were partially met in 1996 when the CFE parties agreed that Russia’s original flank zone limits would apply to a smaller area, while Russia’s original flank territory would have larger limits. Moscow’s total CFE limits, however, remained the same. Although Russia has been in noncompliance with even the higher May 1996 flank limits, Moscow has remained within its overall treaty limits and has repeatedly stated that its flank noncompliance is only temporary.
2002 NATO Prague Summit - not to ratify ACFE as long as Russia was in non-compliance with the host nation consent principle in Moldova and Georgia
2007 Russia: moratorium, suspended its participation
2008 NATO: „Parallel Action Plan”
– Bring Russia back into compliance with the CFE Treaty and encourage progress on ratification of the Adapted CFE Treaty.
– NATO countries proposed that they would work toward ratifying the Adapted CFE Treaty while Russia would address concerns about its compliance, particularly regarding troop deployments in Georgia and Moldova.
2010 NATO continues the cooperation
2015 Treaty Joint Consultative Group, JCG
2015 Russian completely halts its participation in the Treaty
November 7, 2023 Russia formally withdraws from CFE Treaty
February 9, 2024 Greece suspended its participation
March 29, 2024 Poland suspended its participation.
April 5, 2024 Turkey suspended its participation.
- What are the “confidence building measures” in traditional arms control?
Tools and practices designed to enhance transparency, reduce the risk of misunderstandings, and build trust among states in the context of conventional arms control. Under the “Vienna Document”, adopted by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), these measures are specifically aimed at fostering security and stability in Europe.
Key Confidence and Security-Building Measures in the Vienna Document:
- Exchange of Military Information: States must annually exchange detailed information about their military forces, including: Size, structure, and location of units; Major weapons systems and equipment (e.g., tanks, artillery, combat aircraft); Defense budgets and plans.
- Risk Reduction: Participating states agree to consult and cooperate in case of: Unusual military activities (e.g., large-scale troop movements); Hazardous incidents of a military nature (e.g., accidental engagements or airspace violations); States can request explanations for military activities that might appear threatening.
- Notification of Military Activities: States must notify others in advance of: Large-scale military exercises or troop movements; Thresholds include activities involving:
- 9,000 or more troops.
- 250 or more tanks.
- 500 or more armored combat vehicles.
- 250 or more artillery pieces.
- Observation of Certain Military Activities: States are invited to observe certain military activities exceeding specific thresholds (e.g., large-scale exercises); Observers are granted access to ensure transparency and to verify the scale and nature of activities.
- Inspections and Evaluation Visits
On-site Inspections: States may inspect military units and facilities to verify compliance with the Vienna Document; A quota system limits the number of inspections a state can conduct or receive annually.
Evaluation Visits: carried out to assess the accuracy of the information provided during the annual exchange of military data.
Limitations and Challenges
Political Will: Effectiveness depends on states’ willingness to share accurate information and engage in inspections.
Modernization of Measures: Some argue the document needs updating to reflect changes in military technology and strategy (e.g., cyber and hybrid warfare).
Compliance Issues: Geopolitical tensions can lead to non-compliance or limited implementation by some states.
