The European Union and its eastern neighbourhood: Europeanisation and its twenty-first-century contradictions

By Manchester University Press

This volume is timely in that it explores key issues which are currently at the forefront of the EU’s relations with its eastern neighbours. It considers the impact of a more assertive Russia, the significance of Turkey, the limitations of the Eastern Partnership with Belarus and Moldova, the position of a Ukraine in crisis and pulled between Russia and the EU, security and democracy in the South Caucasus. It looks at the contested nature of European identity in areas such as the Balkans. In addition it looks at ways in which the EU’s interests and values can be tested in sectors such as trade and migration. The interplay between values, identity and interests and their effect on the interpretation of europeanisation between the EU and its neighbours is a core theme of the volume.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Manchester University Press
• Release date: Jan 17, 2018
• ISBN: 9781526109125

Book preview

The European Union and its eastern neighbourhood

Europeanisation and its twenty-first-century contradictions

Edited by

Paul Flenley and Michael Mannin

Manchester University Press

Copyright © Manchester University Press 2018

While copyright in the volume as a whole is vested in Manchester University Press, copyright in individual chapters belongs to their respective authors, and no chapter may be reproduced wholly or in part without the express permission in writing of both author and publisher.

Published by Manchester University Press

Altrincham Street, Manchester M1 7JA

www.manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 978 1 5261 0909 5 hardback

First published 2018

The publisher has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for any external or third-party internet websites referred to in this book, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.

Typeset

by Toppan Best-set Premedia Limited

Contents

List of figures and tables

List of contributors

Preface

Acknowledgements

Abbreviations

Introduction Paul Flenley and Michael Mannin

Part I Concepts and frameworks

1 Europeanisation as a past and present narrative Michael Mannin

2 Defining contemporary European identity/ies Nora Siklodi

3 The limitations of the EU's strategies for Europeanisation of the neighbours Paul Flenley

Part II Country/Area studies

4 Europeanisation and Russia Tatiana Romanova

5 ‘Bounded Europeanisation’: the case of Ukraine Nadiia Bureiko and Teodor Lucian Moga

6 Belarus: does Europeanisation require a geopolitical choice? Kiryl Kascian

7 Relations between Moldova and the European Union Kamil Całus and Marcin Kosienkowski

8 Value-oriented aspects of EU-isation: the case of the Balkans Monika Eriksen

9 Turkey: identity politics and reticent Europeanisation Dimitris Tsarouhas

Part III Issues and sectors

10 New member states’ economic relations with Russia: ‘Europeanisation’ or bilateral preferences? Martin Dangerfield

11 EU energy security policy in the eastern neighbourhood: towards Europeanisation? Edward Stoddard

12 The EU and the European Other: the Janus face of EU migration and visa policies in the neighbourhood Igor Merheim-Eyre

13 ‘Neighbour languages’: Europeanisation and language borders Maria Stoicheva

14 Security and democratisation: the case of the South Caucasus Kevork Oskanian and Derek Averre

Conclusion Paul Flenley and Michael Mannin

Bibliography

Index

Figures and tables

Figures

5.1 ‘Bounded’ Europeanisation

5.2 Which foreign policy direction should be a priority for Ukraine? (2002–15). Authors’ own representation according to data provided by Razumkov Centre (2015b).

5.3 Do you consider yourself European? Authors’ own representation according to data provided by Razumkov Centre (2014).

5.4 The relevance of Ukraine's future development for different age groups. Authors’ own representation according to the compiled data provided by the project ‘Region, Nation and Beyond: An Interdisciplinary and Transcultural Reconceptualization of Ukraine’ (University of St Gallen, 2013).

5.5 The relevance of Ukraine's future development depending on the place of study/work. Authors’ own representation according to the compiled data provided by the project ‘Region, Nation and Beyond’ (University of St Gallen, 2013).

15.1 The nexus of EU/neighbourhood relations

Tables

1.1 Historic Europeanisations

1.2 Europeanisation and its contemporary manifestations (adapted from McCormick, 2010)

2.1 Defining European identity/ies: A conceptual framework

5.1 Preferences for foreign policy direction of Ukraine. Regional parameters

5.2 Native language in Ukraine

5.3 Positive attitude towards the monuments

5.4 Positive attitude towards the historical events in the history of independent Ukraine

5.5 Self-identification

11.1 The macro and meso structures of the EU's energy governance matrix in the Caspian

13.1 Proportions of titulars, ethnic Russians and L1 Russian speakers in Soviet republics in 1989 and in post-Soviet countries in 1999–2004 (USSR census and respective post-Soviet censuses)

Contributors

Derek Averre is reader in Russian Foreign and Security Policy and former Director of the Centre for Russian, European and Eurasian Studies at the Department of Politics and International Studies, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom.

Nadiia Bureiko is head of Europeanisation Studies at the Foreign Policy Council ‘Ukrainian Prism’, Ukraine. Since 2014 she has been a post-doctoral researcher at the Center for Governance and Culture in Europe, University of St Gallen, Switzerland.

Kamil Całus is an expert on Moldova at the Centre for Eastern Studies, Warsaw, Poland.

Martin Dangerfield is Professor of European Integration and Jean Monnet Chair in the European Integration of Central and Eastern Europe at the University of Wolverhampton, United Kingdom.

Monika Eriksen is doctoral candidate at the Institute of European Studies, Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland.

Paul Flenley is Subject leader in Politics and International Relations at the School of Social, Historical and Literary Studies, University of Portsmouth, United Kingdom, and managing co-editor of The Journal of Contemporary European Studies.

Kiryl Kascian is Editor-in-Chief at Belarusian Review. He is an expert in inter-ethnic relations, human rights, constitutional law, security issues and regional development.

Marcin Kosienkowski is Assistant Professor at the Institute of Political Science and International Affairs, John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland.

Michael Mannin is Jean Monnet Chair in European Politics (ad personam) and Director of the Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence for Studies in Transnational Europe at the School of Social, Historical and Literary Studies, University of Portsmouth, United Kingdom.

Igor Merheim-Eyre is doctoral researcher at the University of Kent, United Kingdom and a visiting scholar at Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium.

Teodor Lucian Moga is Assistant Professor at the Centre for European Studies, Faculty of Law, ‘Alexandru Ioan Cuza’ University of Iasi (UAIC), Romania, and a post-doctoral researcher at the Center for Governance and Culture in Europe, University of St Gallen, Switzerland.

Kevork Oskanian is lecturer at the Department of Political Science and International Studies (POLSIS), University of Birmingham, United Kingdom.

Tatiana Romanova is Associate Professor, Jean Monnet Chair and Director of the Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence at St Petersburg State University, Russia.

Nora Siklodi is lecturer in Politics and European Studies at the School of Social, Historical and Literary Studies, University of Portsmouth, United Kingdom.

Edward Stoddard is lecturer in International Relations at the School of Social, Historical and Literary Studies, University of Portsmouth, United Kingdom.

Maria Stoicheva is Professor, Jean Monnet Chair at the Department of European Studies, Sofia University ‘St Kliment Ohridski’, Bulgaria.

Dimitris Tsarouhas is Associate Professor at the Department of International Relations, Bilkent University, Turkey.

Preface

This volume is part of the output of a much larger project, associated with the Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence for the Study of a Transnational Europe (CESTE) and funded by the European Commission from 2013 to 2016 at the University of Portsmouth. CESTE and its several activities were based on the prior research of several of its contributors including the editors, Paul Flenley and Michael Mannin, in the fields of East European/Russian studies and the EU and Europeanisation, respectively. The associated research activities led to three conferences that brought together colleagues from a Europe-wide collection of universities, whose interests complemented our own questioning of the relevance and success of the EU as a progenitor of political and socio-economic change (Europeanisation) among its Eastern neighbours.

This field of study and its associated controversies have paralleled, and been partly obscured by, other recent challenges to the EU – economic, political, strategic (with the Trump election) and existential issues (in the case of Brexit). However, the EU and its Eastern neighbourhood relationships remain a part of the more familiar internal dilemmas that the EU faces in relation to free movement, migration, external security, energy futures, EU-Russian relations, notions of identity and the balance of power between member states and community institutions. All of these are reflected in the problems of EU–Eastern neighbourhood relations and are discussed in the following chapters. We hope this will make a contribution to the analysis of the dilemmas that the EU faces as it adapts to its changing role in twenty-first century regional and world politics.

Paul Flenley and Michael Mannin

Portsmouth, 2017

Acknowledgements

On behalf of the contributors, the editors would like to thank the EU, national officials and political and societal actors who gave their time and expert advice in the development of this volume. We also wish to praise the major contribution to the presentational editing of this volume that Andrew Waterman, postgraduate researcher at the University of Portsmouth, has made to its completion. We thank the Centre for International and European Studies Research (CEISR), University of Portsmouth for its financial support in the final stages. We would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers of the book proposal and draft for their comments. Finally, we must fully acknowledge that this project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication only reflects the views of the authors and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information therein.

Abbreviations

Introduction

Paul Flenley and Michael Mannin

The publication of this volume comes at a time of existential crisis for the European Union (EU). Internally it is faced by the Eurozone crisis, the rise of anti-EU populism and ‘Brexit’. In its immediate neighbourhood it is confronted by a range of challenges and threats. The Arab revolutions have not turned into the hoped-for promise of democratisation and have instead degenerated into civil war in the case of Libya, Syria and Yemen. The direct impact of this on the EU is illustrated by the migration crisis which has reinforced tensions at the heart of the EU itself. In the Eastern part of the neighbourhood, a resurgent Russia has not only provided an alternative pole of attraction but also appears to directly challenge the values of the EU. According to some commentators, Russia's political model is being projected as an alternative, not only for some neighbours but also for certain member states of the EU itself. Through the annexation of Crimea and support for the rebels in Donbas, Russia also seems to be challenging some of the basic assumptions of the post-Cold War era in Europe. The EU's response to this in the form of sanctions also exposes tensions between the member states of the EU.

In the Balkans the path to stability and democratisation is still not assured. In the past, the EU's traditional approach to instability in the neighbourhood has been to rely on the power and attractiveness of its pull as a normative power. There appeared to be no alternative to the pursuit of democracy and economic modernisation epitomised by the EU. However, the capacity of the EU to exert such external influence appears to be limited for the time being by its preoccupation with the internal crises within the EU itself and the strength and attractiveness of countervailing forces both domestically and externally in the neighbourhood countries. The context is further complicated by the uncertainties placed over the nature of future EU–US–Russia relations posed by the Trump administration.

The term applied to the process of the EU seeking to influence the neighbourhood is ‘Europeanisation’ or ‘EU-isation’ – the focus of this volume. Most books and articles on the subject of Europeanisation in the Eastern neighbourhood have concentrated largely on the process of policy transfer and the foreign policy aspects of relations (see Weber, Smith and Baun, 2007). There have been several effective studies of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) in particular (for example, Korosteleva, 2012; Noutcheva, Pomorska and Bosse, 2013). This volume differs in that it seeks to explore the problems which the EU has had in projecting EU-isation onto its Eastern neighbourhood by focusing on the way in which interests, values and identity interact with each other in the neighbourhood and between the neighbourhood and the EU itself to shape the nature of EU-isation. In doing so the volume takes as its focus countries in the Eastern neighbourhood which, in one way or another demonstrate, a European perspective as part of their identity. The latter does not necessarily mean that they seek to be members of the EU and it may be that a European identity is internally disputed and a cause of conflict. The volume therefore considers not only the countries that are part of the ENP, but also looks at Russia, Turkey and the Balkans. What these countries all have in common is that the concepts of Europe, European identity and Europeanisation are key elements in their politics and identity. They may be interpreted in different ways and be interacting with different values and interests. A key theme of this volume is to show how these interactions affect the ways in which EU-isation occurs.

In order to facilitate this approach this volume is divided into three parts. Part I consists of three chapters which set out the key parameters and frameworks which inform the discussions in the following chapters. Michael Mannin explores the origins of the term ‘Europeanisation’ and the way in which its contemporary iteration – EU-isation – has become associated with the normative power of the EU. He argues that alternative interpretations and traditions of Europeanisation contest the EU-dominated version. This is a key factor in shaping reaction to the EU's influence in the neighbourhood countries such as Russia. Nora Siklodi discusses the concept of European identity, indicating that there are different levels of identity of which a European consciousness can be just one. She explores the particular approach the European Commission has taken in articulating the notion of European identity. This EU perspective on European identity can be a source of fundamental problems when it confronts other identities and approaches to being European, such as in the Balkans and Russia. Paul Flenley provides an overview of different mechanisms which the EU uses to promote EU-isation in the neighbourhood and discusses the limits of conditionality when membership is not on offer. He considers the lack of symmetry between the interests of the EU and its neighbours, the lack of a resonance with the interests of domestic elites, the impact of a powerful alternative pole in the Eastern neighbourhood (namely Russia) and, finally, the way effective EU-isation is undermined by divisions within the EU itself.

In Part II the themes and concepts discussed in Part I are examined in more detail through a number of country/area specific chapters. Tatiana Romanova's chapter powerfully states the salience of Russia in establishing an alternative geopolitical pole to the EU. Russia asserts that its European identity is not dependent on approval from the EU. Romanova shows that Russia has an alternative interpretation of Europeanisation and European values based on its history and culture. Any EU-isation in Russia is instrumental and Russia is keen to limit its effect in the shared neighbourhood. Nadiia Bureiko and Teodor Lucian Moga's chapter on Ukraine is the first of three chapters which consider the position of those states which are ‘in-betweeners’ – that is, pulled between the EU and Russia. They depict a country that is divided over its future direction, attempting to pursue a multi-vector foreign policy out of necessity and which contains differences over its adherence to European identity. For the authors, the experience of being an ‘in-betweener’ is a key limitation on the effectiveness of EU-isation. Kamil Całus and Marcin Kosienkowski's study of Moldova reveals similar constraints for EU-isation of another ‘in-betweener’. In this case the chapter reveals the way ‘Europeanisation’ can actually mean ‘modernisation’. However, in reality there has been a lack of reform in such areas as corruption. The presence of Russia in the form of the Eurasian Economic Union appears to play the role of being not only an alternative economic pole but also a way of preserving traditional conservative values in contrast to the uncomfortable challenges of EU-isation.

Belarus is also an ‘in-betweener’ country apparently caught between the choice of EU and Russia. Kiryl Kascian, however, shows that this is not a choice which the Belarusian authorities wish to make – they instead seek a relationship with both the EU and Russia. Belarus provides perhaps the starkest example of the limitations of the EU's values-based approach to its neighbours. Belarus's domestic political system and its prioritisation of the relationship with Russia mean that the EU lacks any real impact. Belarus does, however, seek a more pragmatic, interest-based relationship in contrast to the EU's values-based approach which appears to be going nowhere. The chapter also raises the problems of the perception of European identity promoted through EU-isation. While Belarus considers itself European and at the centre of a wider Europe, EU-isation, as it is currently configured, relegates it to the periphery. This theme of differing perceptions of European identity and the consequences of the narrow application of EU-isation recurs across the chapters and is re-addressed in the conclusion of this volume.

The Balkans’ and Turkey's reception of EU-isation is not affected by the experience of being in-betweeners. However, here issues of identity are also still important in affecting the success of EU-isation. In the case of the Balkans, Monika Eriksen shows us that EU-isation is dependent on how far it accords with domestic narratives. Croatia and Serbia experience it differently to other Balkan states, for example. This chapter raises the question of how far EU-isation can fundamentally change values and promote an EU-defined European identity when it confronts other local identities such as Balkan identity. Identity politics is also at the heart of Dimitris Tsarouhas's chapter on Turkey. Turkey's key role in contributing to the security of the EU is shown by the migration crisis. However, over a long period certain member states of the EU have questioned Turkey's suitability for EU membership on the basis of identity and values. In the case of Turkey therefore, the tensions between interests, identity and values which concern this volume are being played out most starkly.

Part III goes on to examine the issue of EU-isation and the relationship between values (norms), interests and identity from the point of view of various sectors/themes which cut across different neighbours and are core elements in their relations with the EU. In sectors such as energy, migration, security and trade, the EU often finds that its commitments to values/norms are challenged when it is confronted by the need to pursue its interests in the neighbourhood. One way round this has been to try to promote EU structures and principles of governance externally so that both values and interests can be aligned. However, the chapters in this part reveal the contradictions in this approach. Martin Dangerfield examines the ways in which EU-isation, in the form of a coherent approach to Russia in the sphere of politics, is not fully reflected in the bilateral approach based on interests preferred by member states when it comes to trade. Interestingly, he shows that the apparent alignment of values and interests of member states such as Hungary vis-à-vis Russia is not what it seems. The growing illiberal politics in countries such as Hungary and Poland has more to do with internal dynamics than any attraction of alternative norms coming from Putin's Russia. Trade relations with Russia have long been interest-based and not pursued as a reflection of shared norms. Edward Stoddard also shows that while there may be EU-isation in terms of a common approach to the structures of energy governance, EU-isation breaks down when it comes to ‘pipeline politics’. Here and elsewhere in this book we see how values/norms can be Europeanised, but when it comes to the pursuit of interests in the areas of security, migration and energy, member states usually prefer bilateralism.

Igor Merheim-Eyre examines an area where EU values and interests appear to be currently in real tension – migration. Once again, while the EU institutions themselves may wish to promote values, individual member states are protecting their interests. He examines the ways in which the development of the single market and internal free movement has led to the need for greater control of the EU's external borders. In this context the neighbours are seen as having a responsibility to help protect the EU from migration from further afield. In acquiescing in this they are promised visa-free access. We see the application of conditionality by the EU, referred to in several chapters, used not to just to promote norms and values but to defend the EU's security interests. The EU may wish Turkey to be EU-ised but more immediately it needs Turkey to stop migration into the EU from Syria.

In the chapters on the Balkans and Ukraine, identity is also tied to language use. Maria Stoicheva's chapter on language policy and Europeanisation examines an area which is overlooked in the studies of Europeanisation. She considers the ways in which the status of languages such as Russian changed in the Eastern neighbourhood after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The ‘Return to Europe’ and Europeanisation have implications for language policy. Europeanisation may mean promoting English instead of Russian or moving from Cyrillic to the Latin script. The fact that Russian language speakers in Ukraine, for example, do not necessarily identify themselves as ethnic Russian and may have a Ukrainian and/or European identity raises the possibility that language use is being replaced by territorial divisions as the indicator of identity. Thus, her chapter shows that the relationship between geopolitics, policymaking and identity is played out at a much more profound level – that of language.

Finally, Kevork Oskanian and Derek Averre explore the relationship between security and democracy in the promotion of the EU's norms and interests. Their case study of the countries of the South Caucasus – Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia – provides a useful additional insight into neighbourhood countries which do manifest a European perspective but with different degrees of intensity. In the context of discussing the relevance of Democratic Peace Theory and the EU's perception that conflict resolution and security on its borders are best resolved through democratic governance, their chapter raises the question as to whether conflict is actually more likely when democratisation is incomplete and when there are variations between neighbouring countries between authoritarian systems and near-democracies. This seems to apply to conflicts in the South Caucasus, including the Russo-Georgia war, and indicates a clear limit to EU-isation as a means of ensuring stability and security on the EU's borders.

In the course of investigating the relationship between values, interests and identity and how this affects EU-isation, the chapters in this volume raise a range of common, cross-cutting themes. We note, first, the different interpretations and uses of Europeanisation throughout the neighbourhood. EU-isation in particular is often used by the neighbours for very different purposes to fulfil their own ends. Second, and connected to this, it becomes apparent that much of the reception of EU-isation is primarily instrumental – what is often referred to as ‘thin’ Europeanisation. There would seem to be a reluctance to engage in deeper, so-called ‘thick’ Europeanisation, which would have a more fundamental socialising dimension and perhaps produce real shifts towards a common European identity and the sharing of common European values with associated political consequences. Third, we see that one of the major obstacles to effective EU-isation is that it confronts entrenched domestic interests and networks. These domestic concerns may not just be in the form of practices such as corruption, but may concern much more existential threats to the neighbour such as the attempted coup in Turkey and fragmentation of the state itself as in Ukraine. These are likely to preoccupy the neighbour more than adhering to the niceties of EU norms and values. Fourth, EU-isation confronts the immutable certainties of geopolitics in the neighbourhood. Eastern neighbours often have their own external constraints whether it be the imperative of engagement with Russia or – in the case of Turkey – dealing with the destabilising effects of the civil war next door in Syria. Finally, while the volume concentrates mainly on the neighbourhood and relations with the EU, EU-isation is affected by the extent to which the EU itself can operate as a coherent international actor. Divisions between member states and EU institutions also undermine the coherence and effectiveness of EU-isation.

The chapters raise two fundamental questions for consideration by both the EU and its Eastern neighbours. First, given the political, cultural, social, economic and strategic obstacles in the path of EU-isation as a transformative normative project, should the EU resign itself to a more instrumental, interest-based approach to neighbours? Second, an EU-led notion of European identity is (and perhaps always has been) challenged by competing notions of what it is to be European. How far should the EU reconstruct its notion of Europeanness in a way that facilitates the Eastern neighbourhood being included as ‘core Europe’ rather than as a transforming ‘other’? These and other issues are examined in the following chapters.

Part I

Concepts and frameworks

1

Europeanisation as a past and present narrative

Michael Mannin

This chapter has two objectives: first, to serve as a conceptual and definitional reference point distinguishing between the related terminologies used in the complex field of Europeanisation; and second, to discuss the premise which recurs in subsequent chapters – that ‘the past is our present reality’. This means that our apparently objective view of what seems contemporary and obvious is actually a construct of the past conceptions of what Europe has been (Flockhart, 2010).

The chapter commences with a discussion of this historical-constructivist approach and then proceeds to examine the prevailing notion of Europeanisation as ‘EU- isation’. It then explores the significance of the Enlightenment and the emergence of, on the one hand, the contemporary paradigm of ‘Europeanism’ and, on the other, the existence of competing interpretations of Enlightenment values that remain to explain what Europe was/is. These interpretations are then explored through an examination of historic periods of Europeanisation. Events in the post-Cold War period have exposed competing legacies of the past and interpretations of Europe's future. The chapter therefore concludes with a summary of the current dilemmas for the EU and its near neighbours that are to some considerable extent a product of these persisting and varied interpretations of Europe's past.

Europeanisation through time and space

A historical constructivist approach brings with it a shifting perspective of what Europe was and is, and thus what it is to be a European today. It also involves a similarly shifting view of what a European ‘other’ comprises (Flockhart, 2010; Giesen, 2003). This means departing from a narrow focus on Europeanisation as EU-isation towards one that exposes causal relationships and diffused patterns of Europeanisation behind its present reality. These can be identified not only within EU Eastern neighbourhood relations, but also as the internal dialogue and division within the EU itself. There are a number of reasons why such an approach is pertinent to the aims of this book. Assumptions about the inevitability of Europeanisation as EU-isation have been challenged by several contemporary circumstances. Internally, the EU has suffered several economic and political shocks in the second decade of the twenty-first century that have not been conducive to deepening and widening its reach. Economic uncertainty and perceived weakness in response to security problems on its Eastern and Southern borders have resulted in a re-evaluation – by new neighbours – of the EU's attractiveness as a pole of security. This has also emerged as an existentialist debate in 2016 following the ‘Brexit’ referendum.

In effect, alternative potentials for Europe's future have emerged and, in order to appreciate the nature of these challenges, an examination of historic Europeanisation as well as observations of national, sub-national, ethnic and cultural memories are salient to an understanding of the present reality of the region. Thus, what Schimmelfennig (2001) characterises as ‘thin Europeanisation’ – that is, the pragmatic acceptance of the constituent rules of the EU – is no longer sufficient to sustain Brussels's impact on the political and economic choices within its new neighbourhood. Without an established set of ‘thick EU values’ involving acceptance of prior norms (i.e. a universal European values set), there is always room for alternative pathways to modernisation, well-being, cultural preservation and societal stability. An alternative pole to the East, Russia, and the growing ambivalence towards a Turkish/EU European destiny, presents a dilemma to other near neighbours when evaluating where their own European futures lie. This is reinforced by the evident lack of any hope of EU membership for near neighbours in the foreseeable future. To complicate matters further, at sub-state level, minority nationalist groups can undermine nation states in seeking the EU as a strategic partner (for example, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Turkey, the Balkans). These problems are explored further in Part II.

In light of these factors, a turn to prior experience, to history and its role in the social construction of the present, would seem imperative in the understanding of ‘present reality’, especially for policy makers and consumers. In a 2015 UK Institute of Government publication, understanding historical viewpoints of those involved and affected by policy, an appreciation of how and why mythologies build up, and ‘getting outside of the now’ were all seen as contributing to ‘historically informed instinctive [sic] analysis’ (Haddon et al., 2015: 6–7). With specific reference to Russia's intervention in Georgia, Crimea and Ukraine, UK Foreign Office officials were conscious of the limitations of knowledge which is based solely around post-Soviet history. They considered that perspectives from the Cold War and earlier were necessary to appreciate how Russia reviewed its own history. For one UK Foreign Office official, ‘the good news is history back on the agenda – though using it strategically is still a challenge.’ (Haddon et al., 2015: 6).

The contemporary idea of EU-isation rests for its integrity on prior notions of Europeanisation. When examined, each of the periods referred to later, primarily rest on an elite-led selection of values that have both internal and external origins. Each period also brings with it