The EU and NATO’s dilemmas with Russia and the prospects for deconfliction

References

• Allison, R., 2008. Russia resurgent? Moscow’s campaign to “coerce Georgia to peace”. International affairs, 84 (6), 1145–1171. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2346.2008.00762.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biscop, S., 2012. The UK and European defence: leading or leaving? International affairs, 88, 1297–1313. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2346.2012.01133.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blockmans, S. and Faleg, G., 2015. More union in European defence. Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies and Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.
   Google Scholar
• Booth, K. and Wheeler, N., 1992. Contending philosophies about security in Europe. In: C. McInnes, ed. Security and strategy in the new Europe. London: Routledge, 3–36.
   Google Scholar
• Carpenter, T.G., 2016. NATO is an institutional dinosaur. Cato Institute, 25 August.
   Google Scholar
• Charap, S. and Troitskiy, M., 2013. Russia, the West and the integration dilemma. Survival, 55 (6), 49–62. doi: 10.1080/00396338.2013.862935
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Council of the European Union, 2004. EU/Russia: the four common spaces, Memo/04/268, 23 November.
   Google Scholar
• Council of the European Union, 2016. EU-NATO cooperation: council adopts conclusions to implement Joint Declaration. Press Release, 728/16, 6 December.
   Google Scholar
• Duke, S., 2017. Europe as a stronger global actor: challenges and strategic responses. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Duke, S. and Vanhoonacker, S., 2016. EU-NATO relations: top-down strategic paralysis and bottom-up cooperation. In: L. Chappell, J. Mawdsley and P. Petrov, eds. The EU, strategy and security policy: regional and strategic challenges. London: Routledge, 153–169.
   Google Scholar
• EEAS, 2015. The European Union in a changing global environment: a more connected, contested and complex world. European External Action Service, July.
   Google Scholar
• EU-NATO Joint Declaration, 2016. Joint Declaration by the President of the European Council, The President of the European Commission and the Secretary-General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. 8 July.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission, 2015. Joint Communication to the European Parliament, The Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Review of the European Neighbourhood Policy, JOIN(2015) final, Brussels, 18 November.
   Google Scholar
• European Council, 1999. Common strategy of the European Union on Russia, 4 June (1999/414/CFSP).
   Google Scholar
• European Parliament, 2015. Towards a new European security strategy? Assessing the impact of changes in the global security environment. Report of the Policy Department, Directorate-General for External Policies, EP/EXPO/B/SEDE/FWC/2013-08/Lot6/05.
   Google Scholar
• European Union, 2016. A stronger Europe. A global strategy for the European Union’s Foreign and Security Policy. Brussels. Available from: http://europa.eu/globalstrategy/ [Accessed 16 July 2017].
   Google Scholar
• Gebhard, C. and Smith, S.J., 2015. The two faces of EU-NATO cooperation: counter-piracy operations off the Somali coast. Cooperation and conflict, 50 (1), 107–127. doi: 10.1177/0010836714532917
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gorbachev, M., 1989. Europe as a Common Home. Address given to the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. Available from: http://polsci.colorado.edu/sites/default/files/1A_Gorbachev.pdf [Accessed 11 July 2017].
   Google Scholar
• Gorka, A., 2017. NATO builds infrastructure for permanent military presence near Russia’s border. Strategic Culture Foundation, 15 May.
   Google Scholar
• Græger, N., 2016. European security as practice: towards an EU-NATO community-in-the-making? European security ( Special issue: European Diplomatic Practices), 25 (4), 478–501. doi: 10.1080/09662839.2016.1236021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Græger, N. and Haugevik, K.M., 2013. The EU’s performance with and within NATO: assessing objectives, outcomes and organisational practices. Journal of European integration, 33 (6), 743–757. doi: 10.1080/07036337.2011.606698
   Google Scholar
• Grushko, A., 2016. Montenegro accession to NATO deepens division within Europe. Sputnik, 21 May.
   Google Scholar
• Haftendorn, H., Keohane, R., and Wallender, C., eds., 1999. Imperfect unions: security institutions over time and space. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hallams, E., Ratti, L., and Zyla, B., eds., 2014. NATO beyond 9/11: the transformation of the Atlantic alliance. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Hellmann, G. and Wolf, R., 1993. Neorealism, neoliberal institutionalism, and the future of NATO. Security studies, 3 (1), 3–43. doi: 10.1080/09636419309347537
   Google Scholar
• Himmrich, J. and Raynova, D., 2017. EU-NATO relations: inching forward? European Leadership Network, May.
   Google Scholar
• House of Representatives, 2017. Department of defense appropriations for 2017: hearings before a subcommittee of the committee of appropriations. House of Representatives, 114th Congress, Second Session, 22 March 2016. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
   Google Scholar
• Jervis, R., 1978. Cooperation under the security dilemma. World politics, 30 (2), 167–214. doi: 10.2307/2009958
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lanoszka, A., 2016. Russian hybrid warfare and extended deterrence in Eastern Europe. International affairs, 92 (1), 175–195. doi: 10.1111/1468-2346.12509
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mearsheimer, J., 2014. Why Ukraine crisis is the West’s fault. Foreign affairs, 93 (5), 77–90.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Monaghan, A., 2015. A “new Cold War”? Abusing history, misunderstanding Russia. Chatham House Research Paper.
   Google Scholar
• NATO, 1999. The Alliance’s strategic concept. Approved by the Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council, 24 April.
   Google Scholar
• NATO, 2016a. Fact sheet: NATO ballistic missile defence, July.
   Google Scholar
• NATO, 2016b. Warsaw Summit Communiqué, issued by the Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council. Warsaw, 8–9 July.
   Google Scholar
• Penkova, T., 2013. EU or Russia? Ukraine’s recurrent (non) integration dilemma. Ispi analysis, January (150).
   Google Scholar
• Popescu, N., 2014. Eurasian Union: the real, the imaginary and the likely. Chaillot Papers, September. Paris: EU Institute for Security Studies.
   Google Scholar
• Posener, A., 2016. In defense of the Baltics. Carnegie Europe, 4 August. Available from: http://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/64244 [Accessed 30 Apr 2017].
   Google Scholar
• Putin, V., 2014. Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club. Sochi, 24 October. Available from: http://eng [Accessed 30 Apr 2017].
   Google Scholar
• Putin, V., 2015. Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club. Sochi, 22 October. Available from: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/50548 [Accessed 30 Apr 2017].
   Google Scholar
• Reuters, 2016. U.S. defense budget focuses on changing security environment: Carter. Reuters, 2 Feburary.
   Google Scholar
• Reuters, 2017. Russia warns of serious consequences from U.S. strike in Syria. Reuters, 8 April.
   Google Scholar
• Sakwa, R., 2015. Frontline Ukraine: crisis in the borderlands. London: I.B. Tauris.
   Google Scholar
• Saxi, H.L., 2017. British and German initiatives for defence cooperation: the joint expeditionary force and the framework nations concept. Defence studies, 17 (2), 171–197. doi: 10.1080/14702436.2017.1307690
   Google Scholar
• Shlapak, D.A. and Johnson, M.W., 2016. Reinforcing deterrence on NATO’s Eastern flank: wargaming the defense of the baltics. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, S.J., Tomić, N., and Gebhard, C., 2017. The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost: a Grounded Theory approach to the comparative study of decision-making in the NAC and PSC. European security, 26 (3), 359–378.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sokolsky, R., 2017. The new NATO-Russia military balance: implications for European Security. Task Force White Paper, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 13 March. Available from: http://carnegieendowment.org/2017/03/13/new-nato-russia-military-balance-implications-for-european-security-pub-68222 [Accessed 30 Apr 2017].
   Google Scholar
• Trenin, D., 2005. Russia, the EU and the common neighbourhood. Essays. Centre for European Reform, September.
   Google Scholar
• Tzimitras, H. and Hatay, M., 2016. The need for realism: solving the Cyprus problem through linkage politics. Turkey Project Policy Paper, October (9) (Washington DC: The Brookings Institution).
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Senate, 2014. Russia Aggression Prevention Act, 113th Congress, 2013–2014.
   Google Scholar
• Üstün, Ç., 2016. Turkey’s policies in its overlapping neighbourhood with Russia and the European Union. In: L. Simão and R. Piet, eds. Security in shared neighbourhoods: foreign policy of Russia, Turkey and the EU. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 53–74.
   Google Scholar
• Van Evera, S., 1999. Causes of war: power and the roots of conflict. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Waltz, K., 1979. Theory of international relations. New York: Addison-Wesley.
   Google Scholar
• Webber, M. and Hyde-Price, A., 2016. Theorising NATO: new perspectives on the Atlantic Alliance. London Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Wolff, A.T., 2009. The structural and political crisis of NATO transformation. Journal of transatlantic studies, 7 (4), 476–492. doi: 10.1080/14794010903286318
   Google Scholar
• Zyla, B., 2016. Who is keeping the peace and who is free-riding? NATO middle powers and burden sharing, 1995–2001. International politics, 53 (3), 303–323. doi: 10.1057/ip.2016.2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar