Historical memory and securitisation of the Russian intervention in Syria

Memories of the past conflicts are a major part of Russian foreign policy discourse. Scholarly literature highlighted the widespread use of Second World War references in Russian discourse during the Ukraine crisis. However, the use of historical memory in the context of Russia’s intervention in Syr...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:International politics (Hague, Netherlands) Netherlands), 2020-12, Vol.57 (6), p.1063-1081
Main Author: Makhortykh, Mykola
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Afghanistan War
Collective memory
Counterterrorism
Development Studies
Discourse
Foreign Policy
International Political Economy
International Relations
Intervention
Memories
Military intervention
Original Article
Political Science
Political Science and International Relations
Political Science and International Studies
Politicians
Politics
Securitization
Security
Sovereignty
Terrorism
War
World War II
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Memories of the past conflicts are a major part of Russian foreign policy discourse. Scholarly literature highlighted the widespread use of Second World War references in Russian discourse during the Ukraine crisis. However, the use of historical memory in the context of Russia’s intervention in Syria remains underinvestigated. Applying securitisation theory, the paper analyses a set of political statements made by Russian pro-government and opposition politicians between 2015 and 2018. The analysis identifies several ways in which they integrate memory and security discourse. These include pro-Kremlin actors’ justifications of the intervention through references to the War on Terror and Chechen Wars; the anti-systemic opposition’s de-securitisation of the Syrian conflict by exposing manipulative uses of history; and the systemic opposition’s counter-securitisation of the intervention itself as an existential threat to Russia through references to the Soviet–Afghan war. The paper concludes by discussing the relationship between historical memory and security discourse.
ISSN:1384-5748
1740-3898
DOI:10.1057/s41311-020-00232-w