The (mis-) recognition of the identity of the European Union as an international actorthe discourse-historical analysis of the Russian political narrative

Abstract

The principle object of this thesis is the analysis of the EU and Russian discursive construction of four EU foreign policy roles. The main empirical question of the study is: How can the interplay of the EU-Russian perceptions contribute to the explanation of the strained EU-Russian relations at the ideational level and how did these dynamics contribute to the climax of the conflict as presented by the Ukrainian events? In order to answer this question this thesis proceeds with the analysis of how the European Union constructs itself as a foreign policy actor, how these self-representations reverberate in the Russian counter-discourse and what repercussions these mirror images have on the interactions between both actors at the ideational level and foreign policy outcomes. These empirical steps are based on the analytical and theoretical framework which is closely linked with the core assumptions of the constructivist and poststructuralist research agenda, namely the constitutive force of political utterances and the view that identity is the result of the interaction between Self and Other. The analytical framework accepts the all-embracing understanding of identity as ‘a feeling of Selfhood’ that consists of the following criteria: autonomy, unity, capability and ideational representations that are subject to external judgment. The empirical part of the thesis revealed that Russian counter-discourse exhibited a wide gamut of discursive reactions that go beyond the conventional recognition/misrecognition dichotomy. However, Russia manifested a conspicuous tendency towards challenging and contesting the EU’s self-ingratiating images as an established actor characterized by distinctive identity. These misrecognition patterns prevalent in Russian political narrative created conflictual predilections intensified by the EU’s reciprocal resistance to these mirror images, which in turn cast into doubt Russia’s status as a ‘Significant Other’ and ‘strategic partner’. Therefore, in their ‘struggle for recognition of the status’ both actors found themselves caught in the vicious and self-reinforcing cycle of mutual mis- and non-recognition. The difficulty to avoid it originates from its framing in the terms of hierarchy and securitization leading to extraordinary measures like the Russian involvement in crisis in Ukraine.