Mémoire
| Résumé : | How did the 2014 Russian annexation of Crimea alter the security and defence strategies and practices of the Nordic countries, namely Norway, Sweden and Finland (NSF), with regards to the Arctic region? Seven years prior to the 2022 invasion, Ukraine was subject to Russia’s assertiveness, when Crimea was illegally annexed and continued warfare appeared. My research seeks to highlight the subsequent changes of 2014 as Russia is presented as axiomatic in Nordic strategic thinking and central to their decision-making involving the northernmost part of their countries. At the end of the Cold War (CW), the Arctic was characterised by a peaceful endeavour, the likelihood of conflict was thus limited. What followed in the years after was a general fear that conflicts from other regions would spill over to the Arctic. In fact, Crimea in 2014 was the beginning of the end between the West and Russia: a rupture threatening Arctic peacefulness. This thesis develops an examination of the evolution of defence postures and practices of Nordic states since 2014 and assesses whether or not the Crimean annexation was a catalyst of change. The main hypothesis is that Crimea in 2014 was the turning point. Since then Norway (aligned), Sweden and Finland (both non-aligned) took an increasingly militaristic turn in the North and deepened their collaboration towards even more convergence. To capture the question, the analytical framework is rooted in securitization and small state theory. A transversal analysis of policy papers along with interviews allowed us to make sense of changes. As such, I carried out a level analysis taking into account the national, regional, and international level, which included a crossectional component. Overall, my research is summarized as follows: (1) Crimea in 2014 was a turning point in acknowledging war-type scenarios on European soil again, (2) high-tech and hybrid-Russian warfare used worldwide also altered security perception of NSF for the North, (3) threat perceptions from Russia increased drastically, (4) the Arctic became securitized in defence terms for NSF and policy changes along with capabilities evolved, (5) the Arctic region is increasingly understood within an overall strategic region, (6) cooperation on bi-, tri-, and multilateral levels was enhanced through interoperability, exercises and common agreements, (7) Arctic exceptionalism is challenged and on the way to disappear. |
