Call for participation in the debate: “Can Prospect Theory Explain Russia’s 2014 Annexation of Crimea?” Deadline: 30.9.2021
[Feel free to forward, share, or post. Excuse any cross-posting.]
Call for participation in debate “Can Prospect Theory Explain Russia’s 2014 Annexation of Crimea?” 30.9.2021
Since 2019, Dr. Julie Fedor (U of Melbourne), Dr. Gergana Dimova (U of Oxford), and Dr. Andreas Umland (Kyiv-Mohyla Academy) have been editing a series of special sections on the annexation of Crimea, within the ibidem Press “Journal of Soviet and Post-Soviet Politics and Society” (JSPPS): www.jspps.eu. See https://www.facebook.com/events/460801681761446. JSPPS is also distributed via Columbia University Press here: https://cup.columbia.edu/series/journal-of-soviet-and-post-soviet-politics-and-society
We invite junior and senior scholars to read, and comment on, the peer-reviewed forthcoming JSPPS paper (of which the text will be provided):
“Loss Aversion, Neoimperial Frames and Territorial Expansion: Using Prospect Theory to Examine the Annexation of Crimea”
By Dr. Ion Marandici, Department of Political Science, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick
Abstract: Why did Russia’s authoritarian leader decide to annex Crimea? Why could Ukraine’s politicians not resist the Russian aggression effectively? This study relies on prospect theory and new documentary evidence to illuminate the decision-making in Moscow and Kyiv that led to the takeover of Crimea. The paper assesses the scope conditions of prospect theory compared to alternative theories of foreign policy decision-making. First, it identifies the turning points of the Euromaidan crisis preceding the annexation and traces how Putin’s assessment of the status quo shifted repeatedly between the domains of losses and gains. In the domain of losses, the authoritarian leader, influenced by an imperial faction within the presidential administration, became more risk acceptant, annexed the peninsula, and escalated the hybrid warfare. In doing so, Russia’s president framed the intervention, using nationalist themes and drawing on salient historical analogies from the imperial era. Second, the analysis of new documents released by Ukraine’s National Defense and Security Council (RNBO) and participant testimonies reveals that the decision-makers in Kyiv could not mount an effective resistance due to squabbles among coalition partners, the breakdown of the military chain of command in Crimea, the looming threat of a full-scale Russian invasion from the East, and the inflated expectations regarding the West’s capacity to deter Russia’s aggression. Third, the article relies on prospect theory to explain why after Crimea’s annexation, Putin refrained from continuing the territorial expansion at Ukraine’s expense, opting instead to engage in hybrid warfare and back secessionism in Eastern Ukraine. This account highlights the explanatory power of prospect theory compared to alternative frameworks, pointing out, at the same time, the need to incorporate strategic interactions, personality factors, and group dynamics in future studies of foreign policy decision-making.
We are looking for pronounced statements on Marandici’s paper of between approx. 800 and 5,000 words. If interested to add your comment to this debate, please, request the PDF of the paper from: firstname.lastname@example.org which we will send out in August 2021. Final texts need to be submitted until 30 September 2021 – preferably earlier.
As models for the formal style of your comment (footnotes, transliteration, quotes, etc.), please, refer to these open-access papers: Andrew Wilson, “The Crimean Tatar Question: A Prism for Changing Nationalisms and Rival Versions of Eurasianism,” JSPPS 3:2 (2017), https://doi.org/10.24216/97723645330050302_01 Maria Shagina, “Business as Usual: Sanctions Circumvention by Western Firms in Crimea,” JSPPS 5:1 (2019), https://doi.org/10.24216/97723645330050501_04
Either footnotes or the Harvard style can be used. We will only accept fully edited, properly referenced as well as well-formatted texts in perfect English, and cannot assist in preparing or editing comments. Please, fully list all texts to which you are referring to in the footnotes or bibliography. Please, do not send us half-ready articles. We cannot absolutely guarantee publication before receiving your text, but will be happy to publish all competent comments that tackle the issue, have some empirical, conceptual and theoretical grounding, are linguistically and stylistically publishable, as well as arrive in time. Contributions to this debate will not be peer-reviewed but treated like book reviews. Multi-authored texts are welcome too. Female contributors are especially welcome.
We may have a second round of debate in 2022, if interest in continuing this discussion is sufficiently high. We later intend to republish the entire debate, within a larger collected volume.
Journal of Soviet and Post-Soviet Politics and Society 7:1 (2021): Special sections on the history, memory & interpretation of the #OUN
#JSPPS 8:1 (2021). @ibidem11 @ColumbiaUP
Special Section: Issues in the History and Memory of the #OUN IV
Yuliya Yurchuk, Andreas Umland: Introduction: Studies in the Course and Commemoration of the OUN’s Anti-Soviet Resistance
Grzegorz Motyka: NKVD Internal Troops Operations against the Ukrainian Insurgent Army in 1944–45
Oksana Myshlovska: History Education and Reconciliation: The Ukrainian National Underground Movement in Secondary School Curricula, Textbooks, and Classroom Practices (1991–2012)
Marian Luschnat-Ziegler: Observing Trends in Ukrainian Memory Politics (2014–2019) through Structural Topic Modeling
Special Section: A Debate on “#Ustashism,” Generic #Fascism, and the OUN I
Oleksandr Zaitsev: On Ustashism and Fascism: A Response to Critics
Roger Griffin: Fascism, Ustashism, and the Ecumenical Application of Ideal Types
Angel Alcalde: A New Turn: On the Need for a Transnational Interpretation of the Ustasa and OUN
Stephen Shenfield: Accommodating “Stateless Nations” in the Conceptualization of Fascism
Ivan Gomza: Gravity of Void: Remarks on the Structural Consistency and Empirical Validity of the Notion of “Ustashism”
Per Rudling: “Saving the OUN from a Collaborationist and Possibly Fascist Fate:” On the Genealogy of the Discourse on the OUN’s “Non-Fascism”
Maria Shagina on Thane Gustafson: The Bridge: Natural Gas in a Redivided Europe
Iryna Shchygol on Maria Rogacheva: Soviet Scientists Remember: Oral Histories of the Cold War Generation
Aleksander Ivanov on Zuzanna Bogumił: Gulag Memories: The Rediscovery and Commemoration of Russia’s Repressive Past
Aijan Sharshenova on Bettina Renz: Russia’s Military Revival
Darina Sadvakassova on Marlene Laruelle: The Nazarbayev Generation: Youth in Kazakhstan
Kateryna Smagliy on Beth A. Fischer: The Myth of Triumphalism: Rethinking President Reagan’s Cold War Legacy
Mariia Koskina on Victoria Donovan: Chronicles in Stone: Preservation, Patriotism, and Identity in Northwest Russia
Aleksandra Pomiecko on Brandon Schechter: The Stuff of Soldiers: A History of the Red Army in World War II through Objects
Magda Giurcanu on Andrew Monaghan: Dealing with the Russians
New volume in the ibidem-Verlag Book series “Soviet and Post-Soviet Politics and Society” by Lincoln Flake. With a foreword by Peter Martland. Distributed by Columbia University Press. To be listed with Scopus and Clarivate Web of Science book citation index.
russia #orthodox #churches #history #research #publication #publishing #society
On Western strategy towards #Russia: From ‘#Putinfirst’ to ‘democracy first’ – #AndriusKubilius in “European View” 2021
The article analyses two distinct approaches that Western leaders have taken to relations with Putin’s Russia. It argues that the dominant approach of fostering good relations with Vladimir Putin, prioritising these over support for longer-term democratic change in Russia, has not brought any results and is damaging the interests of Russian society, neighbouring countries and the West. The article analyses the prerequisites for deep change in Russia and argues that there is a need for the EU to comprehensively review and change its strategy towards Russia, putting democracy at its core. It discusses in detail the deterrence, containment and transformation elements of a new EU strategy. The article emphasises that the strategic approach of ‘democracy first’ in relations with Russia also relates to the future of democracy in general and should be a priority of EU–US cooperation.
Book series “Soviet and Post-Soviet Politics and Society” in the #Scopus and #WebofScience citation indeces @ibidem11 @ColumbiaUP
Having been registered with Scopus Elsevier in 2019, the ibidem-Verlag Book Series “Soviet and Post-Soviet Politics and Society” (#SPPS) has, until the end of 2020, accumulated 147 entries in this Citation index. The monographs and chapters in collected volumes listed here were published within SPPS between 2018 and 2020: https://www.scopus.com/sourceid/21100865030#tabs=1. So far, SPPS’s ranking in the three relevant #Scopus categories “#History,” “#PoliticalScience and #InternationalRelations,” and “Political Science and #Sociology” is modest. Yet, the volumes and papers published in SPPS during the last three years will get additional quotations during the next years.
More monographs and collections are in print and preparation: https://www.ibidem.eu/en/reihen/gesellschaft-politik/soviet-and-post-soviet-politics-and-society.html. English-language SPPS volumes are also distributed by Columbia University Press here: https://cup.columbia.edu/series/soviet-and-post-soviet-politics-and-society?amount=96.
Starting this year, original SPPS volumes are also being registered with the new Clarivate Web of Science Book Citation Index: http://wokinfo.com/cgi-bin/bkci/search.cgi?search=”Soviet+and+Post-Soviet+Politics+and+Society”&searchtype=and.
Potential SPPS book authors and editors should send their book proposals to: email@example.com
The regime that has emerged in Russia under President Vladimir Putin is no longer only Russia’s problem. By promoting corruption, kleptocratic practices and the…
Tables of @Publons-registered researchers in Russian & Ukrainian studies with most @WebOfScience Core Collection entries
Top 10 Publons-registered researchers in the fields “#Russia,” “#Ukraine,” “#RussianPolitics” as well as “#UkrainianStudies,” with the most entries in the Clarivate Web of Science Core Collection, as of 10 January 2021 (most of my entries listed here are book reviews). See: https://publons.com/researcher/?research_field=9279&is_core_collection=1&order_by=num_publications
Tavola rotonda online con Agnieszka Martina Bladowska, Nona Mikhelidze, Lia Quartapelle, Donatella Sasso (moderatrice), e Anna Zafesova.