Did Germany Contribute to Deterrence Failure against Russia in Early 2022?

Q4 Social Sciences
Jonas J. Driedger
{"title":"Did Germany Contribute to Deterrence Failure against Russia in Early 2022?","authors":"Jonas J. Driedger","doi":"10.51870/tlxc9266","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"With signs of Russia’s aggressive intentions mounting since Fall 2021, Ukraine and NATO allies criticised Germany for not sufficiently contributing to Western efforts at deterring a Russian invasion. The article evaluates this claim by applying deterrence theory and using congruence analysis on foundational policy documents, expert literature and interviews of Russian and Western policymakers. It establishes that states contribute to collective extended deterrence the more they have the capabilities to harm assets that are highly valued by the revisionist and the more the revisionist has reasons to believe that these capabilities would be used if it enacted aggression. The article then evaluates Germany’s potential deterrence contributions, establishing that Germany’s vast arms industry and economic clout allowed it to significantly threaten the Russian regime through economic destabilisation and prospects of high-casualty fighting. It then gauges Germany’s actual deterrence contributions, finding them to have been significantly smaller: Germany deliberately avoided military threats and deliveries of arms to Ukraine. And while Germany did early on threaten to use its significant economic clout against Russia, it remained vague and non-committal over core issues of Russian economic interests, such as the Nord Stream 2 pipeline system. The results provide and inform further hypotheses on the causes of German behaviour and indirect influences on deterrence against Russia. They also urge reconsiderations of strategic thinking in Berlin and elsewhere.","PeriodicalId":38461,"journal":{"name":"Central European Journal of International and Security Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Central European Journal of International and Security Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.51870/tlxc9266","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

With signs of Russia’s aggressive intentions mounting since Fall 2021, Ukraine and NATO allies criticised Germany for not sufficiently contributing to Western efforts at deterring a Russian invasion. The article evaluates this claim by applying deterrence theory and using congruence analysis on foundational policy documents, expert literature and interviews of Russian and Western policymakers. It establishes that states contribute to collective extended deterrence the more they have the capabilities to harm assets that are highly valued by the revisionist and the more the revisionist has reasons to believe that these capabilities would be used if it enacted aggression. The article then evaluates Germany’s potential deterrence contributions, establishing that Germany’s vast arms industry and economic clout allowed it to significantly threaten the Russian regime through economic destabilisation and prospects of high-casualty fighting. It then gauges Germany’s actual deterrence contributions, finding them to have been significantly smaller: Germany deliberately avoided military threats and deliveries of arms to Ukraine. And while Germany did early on threaten to use its significant economic clout against Russia, it remained vague and non-committal over core issues of Russian economic interests, such as the Nord Stream 2 pipeline system. The results provide and inform further hypotheses on the causes of German behaviour and indirect influences on deterrence against Russia. They also urge reconsiderations of strategic thinking in Berlin and elsewhere.
德国对2022年初对俄罗斯的威慑失败有贡献吗?
自2021年秋季以来,随着俄罗斯侵略意图的迹象越来越多,乌克兰和北约盟国批评德国没有为西方阻止俄罗斯入侵的努力做出足够的贡献。本文通过运用威慑理论和对基础政策文件、专家文献和俄罗斯和西方政策制定者访谈的一致性分析来评估这一说法。它确立了国家对集体延伸威慑的贡献,他们越有能力损害修正主义者高度重视的资产,修正主义者就越有理由相信,如果实施侵略,这些能力将被使用。文章随后评估了德国潜在的威慑贡献,确定德国庞大的武器工业和经济影响力使其能够通过经济不稳定和高伤亡战斗的前景对俄罗斯政权构成重大威胁。然后,它评估了德国在威慑方面的实际贡献,发现德国的贡献要小得多:德国故意避免军事威胁和向乌克兰运送武器。尽管德国很早就威胁要利用其巨大的经济影响力来对付俄罗斯,但在涉及俄罗斯经济利益的核心问题上,比如北溪2号(Nord Stream 2)管道系统,德国仍然含糊不清,没有做出承诺。研究结果提供了关于德国行为的原因以及对对俄威慑的间接影响的进一步假设。他们还敦促柏林和其他地方重新考虑战略思维。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Central European Journal of International and Security Studies
Central European Journal of International and Security Studies Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: The Central European Journal of International and Security Studies (CEJISS) was founded by Mitchell Belfer (Editor in Chief), David Erkomaishvili (Deputy Editor in Chief), Nigorakhon Turakhanova (Head of the Academic Centre) and Petr Kucera, in December 2006, as an autonomous wing of the Department of International Relations and European Studies at Metropolitan University Prague. The initial goal was to develop, and project globally, a uniquely Central European take on unfolding international and security issues. This entailed an initial “out-reach” programme to attract scholars from throughout the four Central European states – the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and the Slovak Republic – to participate in the journal as authors and members of the Editorial and (then) Advisory Boards. By the time of the first issue however, it became clear that CEJISS was also capable of acting as a platform for non-Central European scholars to present their academic research to a more regionalised audience. From issue 1:1 in June 2007 until the present, CEJISS has become, quite literally, a two-way street—it helps Central European scholars enter international academia and international scholars enter Central Europe.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信