A ‘Macro-regional’ Europe in the Making. Theoretical Approaches and Empirical Evidence
A ‘Macro-regional’ Europe in the Making. Theoretical Approaches and Empirical Evidence
复制标题
正在形成的“宏观区域”欧洲。
DOI：
10.1080/09668136.2017.1299918
复制
发表时间：
2017
影响因子：
1.4
通讯作者：
Gabriele Abels
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Gabriele Abels
建构主义的概念obraz vraga（“敌人的形象”）被用来分析2004-2008年期间，普京是俄罗斯作为一个强大的国家。斯内特科夫令人信服地认为，这一框架抓住了克里姆林宫政权在车臣分裂分子被击败后、德米特里·梅德韦杰夫（Dmitry Medvedev）担任一届总统之前的几年里的本质。当时，俄罗斯已经开始关注西方在国际事务中迅速扩大的作用，这是由总统乔治W。布什政府，以及后苏联时代出现的颜色革命。“作为回应，该政权扩大了其obraz vraga，包括任何质疑普京政权为俄罗斯选择的路线和方向的行为者或团体-国内或国外”（第106页）。这种社会结构的特殊用法具有很大的解释潜力，如果作者也将其应用于2014年的动荡事件，它可能会被证明特别具有启发性。斯涅特科夫的著作为这位俄罗斯安全专家提供了丰富的调查议程。主题包括梅德韦杰夫在执政期间支持的现代化推动力;普京在2012年再次当选总统时实施的俄罗斯内部空间的重新证券化;以及拉姆赞·卡德罗夫作为高加索强人的出现和分裂该地区的“拉姆扎尼化”计划。作者认为，俄罗斯和车臣的形象和自我形象在1999年至2014年之间发生了巨大变化，这一论点是不容置疑的。虽然这很可能更多地归因于俄罗斯轰炸车臣叛乱分子，也就是说，使用硬实力-本书中没有充分强调的问题-而不是改变威胁感知或他者的可变社会结构，但Snetkov的研究明确地表明，使用多个分析镜头来研究俄罗斯的安全挑战是多么有价值。
The constructivist concept of obraz vraga (‘image of the enemy’) is invoked to analyse the 2004–2008 period when Putin was holding Russia up as a strong state. Snetkov persuasively contends that this frame captured the nature of the Kremlin regime in the years following the defeat of the Chechen separatists but before the one-term presidency of Dmitry Medvedev. At that time Russia had become concerned with the West’s rapidly expanding role in international affairs, spearheaded by President George W. Bush’s administration, and with the colour revolutions emerging in the post-Soviet space. ‘In response, the regime widened its obraz vraga to include any actor or group—domestic or foreign—that questioned the course and direction chosen for Russia by the Putin regime’ (p. 106). This particular use of a social construction holds much explanatory potential, and it might have proved especially illuminating had the author also applied it to the tumultuous events of 2014. Snetkov’s volume provides a rich investigative agenda for the Russian security specialist. Topics include the modernisation thrust that Medvedev favoured while in power; the resecuritisation of Russia’s internal space implemented by Putin on his re-election to the presidency in 2012; and the emergence of Ramzan Kadyrov as the strongman of the Caucasus and the ‘Ramzanification’ programme that divided the region. The author’s contention that images and self-images of Russia and Chechnya changed dramatically between 1999 and 2014 is unassailable. While in all likelihood this owed more to Russia bombing Chechen rebels into submission, that is, use of hard power—an issue underemphasised in this book—than to shifting threat perceptions or variable social constructions of the Other, Snetkov’s research unambiguously signals how valuable it can be to study Russia’s security challenges using multiple analytical lenses.