Scientific discourse on NATO's strategic evolution

In 2022 it is planned to release a new strategic concept of NATO. Experts and scholars are taking a prominent part in its development. They have a significant impact on the formation of the foreign policy identity of this transnational political space through their place in the construction of the foreign policy identity of states, NATO institutions and related structures. In the research, using the method of discourse analysis, were studied the publications of think tanks affiliated with NATO, the EU, the US, the UK. The researchers’ current approaches to the strategic development of the alliance are considered, a comparative analysis is carried out, the established scientific schools – NATO, EU, USA and the UK – are highlighted. It is concluded that the scientific community creates narratives about the past and future of the organization, contributes to determining its place in international relations, its partners and rivals. In turn, NATO's foreign policy identity as a transnational political space transforms the identities of the member states, which leads to the homogeneity of the transatlantic security space, isomorphism between its subjects – states. NATO is perceived by Western experts as a community of democratic states with global ambitions and responsibility in maintaining international security and promoting Western values. The key threats are the policies of Russia and China, technological changes, contradictions within the alliance. At the same time, in each of the schools are researched problems that are relevant to it. The most influential are the schools of NATO and the US. European schools, primarily the EU’s, have less influence, which is due to their emphasis on EU defence integration, disagreements within the Union itself, limited results of new defense initiatives after 2016.

1. Aleshin A.A. (2021). Rol' nauchnogo diskursa v transformatsii strategii natsional'noi bezopasnosti Velikobritanii [Scientific Discourse Role in the UK National Security Strategy Transformation]. Analysis and Forecasting. IMEMO Journal. No 4. P. 72–84. DOI: 10.20542/afij-2021-4-72-84.

2. Aleshin A.A. (2022). Faktor Brekzita vo vzaimodeistvii Evropeiskogo soyuza i NATO po voprosam bezopasnosti [The Brexit Factor in European Union-NATO Security Cooperation]. Diss. cand. of science (polit.). Moscow, 2022. 291 p.

3. Bartosh A.A. (2020). Chto proiskhodit v NATO i s NATO [What is happening in NATO and with NATO]. Diplomatic Service. Is. 1. P. 15–26.

4. Binnendijk H., Germanovich G. (2018) NATO Needs a European Level of Ambition. Defense News. URL: https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/2018/12/07/nato-needs-a-european-level-of-ambition/ (accessed: 04.02.2022).

5. Biscop S. (2019). The EU or NATO: that is not a Question. Mutual Reinforcement. CSDP and NATO in the Face of Rising Challenges /ed. by C. Brustlein. IFRI. URL: https://www.ifri.org/en/publications/etudes-de-lifri/focus-strategique/mutual-reinforcement-csdp-and-nato-face-rising (accessed: 04.02.2022).

6. Bourdieu P. (2007). Sotsiologiya sotsial'nogo prostranstva [Sociology of social space]. S.-P.: Alteiya. 288 p.

7. Chalmers M., Jesset W. (2020). Defence and the Integrated Review: A Testing Time. Whitehall Report 2-20. RUSI. URL: https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/whitehall-reports/defence-and-integrated-review-testing-time (accessed: 04.02.2022).

8. Danilov D.A. (2021). Sammit NATO: global'noe budushchee posle «smerti mozga» [NATO Summit: Global Future After Brain Death]. Scientific and Analytical Herald of the Institute of Europe RAS. Is. 3. P. 7–14.

9. DiMaggio P.J., Powell W.W. (1991). (eds.). The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. 486 p.

10. Fiott D. (ed.) (2021). European Sovereignty. Strategy and interdependence. EUISS. URL: https://www.iss.europa.eu/sites/default/files/EUISSFiles/CP_169.pdf (accessed: 24.05.2022).

11. Fiott D., Lindstrom G. (eds.) (2021). Strategic Compass. New bearings for EU security and defence? EUISS. URL: https://www.iss.europa.eu/sites/default/files/EUISSFiles/CP_171_0.pdf (accessed: 24.05.2022).

12. Fix L., Giegerich B., Kirch T. (eds.) (2019). European Security in Crisis What to Expect if the US Withdraws from NATO. IISS. URL: https://www.iiss.org/blogs/research-paper/2019/09/european-security-us-nato (accessed: 04.02.2022).

13. Gilli A. (2019). Preparing for “NATO-mation”: the Atlantic Alliance toward the age of artificial intelligence. NDC Policy Brief. No. 4. NDC. URL: https://www.ndc.nato.int/news/news.php?icode=1270 (accessed: 04.02.2022).

14. Goldgeier J., Martin G. (2020). NATO’S Never-Ending Struggle for Relevance. War on the Rocks. URL: https://warontherocks.com/2020/09/natos-never-ending-struggle-for-relevance/ (accessed: 04.02.2022).

15. Golub Yu., Shenin S. (2021). Ot Trampa k Baidenu [From Trump to Biden]. International Trends. Vol. 19. Is. 3. P. 68–84.

16. Gottemoeller R. (2019). NATO at 70: modernising for the future. NDC Policy Brief. No. 5. NDC. URL: https://www.ndc.nato.int/news/news.php?icode=1279# (accessed: 04.02.2022).

17. Greenwood R., Oliver C., Lawrence T.B., Meyer R.E. (2017) (eds.). The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism. L.: SAGE. 928 p.

18. Haas P.M. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination. International Organization. Vol. 46. No. 1. P. 1–35.

19. Ish-Shalom P. (2006). Theory as a hermeneutical mechanism: The democratic-peace thesis and the politics of democratization. European Journal of International Relations. Vol. 12. No. 4. P. 565–598.

20. Istomin I.A., Bolgova I.V., Sushentsov A.A., Rebro O.I. (2020). Logika evolyutsii NATO: dostizheniya I perspektivy [The Logic of NATO Evolution: Achievements and Prospects]. World Economy and International Relations. Vol. 64. Is. 1. P. 26–34.

21. Ivanov O.P. (2020). Modernizatsiya strategii NATO i Rossiya [Modernization of the strategy of NATO and Russia]. Contemporary Europe. Is. 3. P. 117–127.

22. Kaiser K. (2019). The Future of NATO. Belfer Center. URL: https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/future-nato (accessed: 04.02.2022).

23. Lucarelli S., Marrone A., Niccolò M.F. (eds.) (2021). NATO Decision-Making in the Age of Big Data and Artificial Intelligence. Brussels: NATO. 100 p.

24. Maiziere De T., Mitchell W. (eds.) (2020). NATO 2030: United for a New Era. NATO. URL: https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2020/12/pdf/201201-Reflection-Group-Final-Report-Uni.pdf (accessed: 04.02.2022).

25. Michel L.G. (2014). NATO Decision-Making: The ‘Consensus Rule’ Endures Despite Challenges. NATO’s Post-Cold War Politics. New Security Challenges Series / Ed.: S. Mayer. L.: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: 10.1057/9781137330307_6.

26. Moller S.B., Rynning S. (2021). Revitalizing Transatlantic Relations: NATO 2030 and Beyond. The Washington Quarterly. Vol. 44. Is. 1. P. 177–197. DOI: 10.1080/0163660X.2021.1896133.

27. NATO Parliamentary Assembly (2020). Policy Recommendations Adopted in 2020. URL: https://www.nato-pa.int/download-file?filename=/sites/default/files/2020-11/2020%20-%20NATO%20PA%20POLICY%20RECOMMENDATIONS.pdf (accessed: 04.02.2022).

28. Olsen J.A. (2020a). Understanding NATO. The RUSI Journal. Vol. 165. Is. 3. P. 60–72. DOI: 10.1080/03071847.2020.1777772.

29. Olsen J.A. (ed) (2020b). Future NATO. Adapting to New Realities. L.: Routlege. 160 p. DOI: 10.4324/9781003146254.

30. Palmer D.A.R. (2019). A Strategic Odyssey: Constancy of Purpose and Strategy-Making in NATO, 1949–2019. NDS Research Paper. No. 3. NDC. URL: https://www.ndc.nato.int/news/news.php?icode=1330 (accessed: 04.02.2022).

31. Prokhorenko I.L. (2017). Vneshnepoliticheskaya identichnost'. Identichnost': lichnost', obshchestvo, politika. Entsiklopedicheskoe izdanie [Identity: The Individual, Society and Politics. An Encycpopedia] (ed. by I.S. Semenenko). M.: Ves mir. 992 p.

32. Prokhorenko I.L. (2015). Prostranstvennyi podkhod v issledovanii mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii [Spatial Approach in International Relations Studies]. M.: IMEMO. 111 p.

33. Rose F.A. (2020). NATO and Outer Space: Now what? Brookings. URL: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/04/22/nato-and-outer-space-now-what/ (accessed: 04.02.2022).

34. Semenenko I.S. Kategoriya identichnosti v sotsial'nykh naukakh: ponyatie, kognitivnyi potentsial, prioritety issledovanii. Identichnost': lichnost', obshchestvo, politika. Entsiklopedicheskoe izdanie [Identity: The Individual, Society and Politics. An Encycpopedia] (ed. by I.S. Semenenko). M.: Ves mir. 992 p.

35. Schake K., Pepe E. (2019). 70 years of NATO: the Strength of the Past, Looking into the Future. NDC Policy Brief. No. 9. NDC. URL: https://www.ndc.nato.int/news/news.php?icode=1299 (accessed: 04.02.2022).

36. Scott W.R. (2007). Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 280 p.

37. Skaluba C. (ed.) (2020). NATO 20/2020: 20 bold ideas to reimagine the Alliance after the 2020 US election. NATO. URL: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_180063.htm (accessed: 04.02.2022).

38. Ukhvanova-Shmygova I.F. (ed.) (2000). Metodologiya issledovanii politicheskogo diskursa: aktual'nye problemy soderzhatel'nogo analiza obshchestvenno-politicheskikh tekstov. Vyp. 2. [Discourse Survey Research Methodology: Actual Problems of Content Analysis of Socio-Political Texts]. Mn.: BGU. 479 p.

39. Voitolovskii F.G. (2007). Edinstvo i razobshchennost' Zapada: ideologicheskoe otrazhenie v soznanii elit SShA i Zapadnoi Evropy transformatsii politicheskogo miroporyadka 1940–2000-e gody [Unity and disunity of the West: ideological reflection in the minds of the elites of the United States and Western Europe of the transformations of the political world order in the 1940s-2000s]. M.: Kraft+. 464 p.

40. Wiener A. (2014). A Theory of Contestation. Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. 104 p.