Home » Posts tagged 'ukraine'

Tag Archives: ukraine

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: andreas.umland@ukma.edu.ua 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


Chaim Shinar: Ukraine’s Struggle for Independence — EUROPEAN REVIEW

See: Ukraine’s Struggle for Independence

Интервью: Зачем арестовали Навального, и что известно о преемнике Меркель? @UKRLIFETV @UkrinFuture

Source: Зачем арестовали Навального, и что известно о преемнике Меркель? – Андреас Умланд | Політика | UKRLIFE.TV


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

Не та война, не в то время: почему теории конфликтов не применимы к войне России и Украины, – Умланд | Політика | UKRLIFE.TV

Source: Не та война, не в то время: почему теории конфликтов не применимы к войне России и Украины, – Умланд | Політика | UKRLIFE.TV

История с вагнеровцами: может ли СБУ позволить себе действовать как израильский Моссад? @UkrLifeTV

История с вагнеровцами: может ли СБУ позволить себе действовать как израильский Моссад? – Умланд | Політика | UKRLIFE.TV


Zoom Conf.: Ukraine in East-Central Europe: Kyiv’s Bilateral Relations and Prospects of Regional Multilateralism @IDMVienna, 18 Sep 2020, 14:20-19:30

[Feel free to forward, share or post.]

International Hybrid Conference

“Ukraine in East-Central Europe:
Kyiv’s Bilateral Relations and Prospects of Multilateralism in the Region”

Zoom & IDM, Vienna, 18 September 2020, 2:20-7:30 p.m. (CEST)
Conference organized by IDM in cooperation with Paneuropa-Union (Vienna) and Ukrainian Institute for the Future (UIF, Kyiv)Website: http://www.idm.at/veranstaltungen/aktuelle-veranstaltungen/item/ukraine-in-east-central-europe
Facebook Event: https://www.facebook.com/events/328324144906900/Youtube Livestream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4Nq0m3HJmo&feature=youtu.be

What is the role of Ukraine for the future of East-Central Europe, and vice versa? Where does Kyiv politically stand now, and should it strategically engage, in the future, within the area from Prague to Tallinn, from Riga to Baku? How can Ukraine’s relations with other East-Central European countries develop? What are the chances, opportunities and hindrances for these bilateral relations to grow, broaden and intensify, or to stagnate and even deteriorate? Can Kyiv expect and should thus work towards new bilateral treaties with its geographically closest strategic partners, and if so – with which countries towards what kind of agreements? Is there – if such upgraded relations were to develop – an opportunity to create not only deeper bilateral ties? Are there also chances for new multi-lateral networks or structures? Could such novel multilateralism around Ukraine go beyond the already existing, yet geographically and functionally circumscribed Organization for Democracy and Economic Development (GUAM), Visegrad Four, Bucharest Nine Group, and Three Seas Initiative?


14:20 Welcome by the Organizers

Sebastian Schäffer, Institute for the Danube Region and Central Europe, Vienna
Rainard Kloucek, Paneuropa-Union, Vienna
Andreas Umland, Ukrainian Institute for the Future, Kyiv

14:30 Panel One: “Ukraine and the Major Regional Actors in East-Central Europe”

“Future Scenarios of EU Integration: Opportunities and Risks for Prospective Members”
Andreas Heinemann-Grüder, University of Bonn

“Polish-Ukrainian Bilateral Relations after the Annexation of Crimea”
Agnieszka Legucka, Polish Institute for International Affairs (PISM), Warsaw

“Ukraine’s Relations to Romania in the Past and Present”
Angela Gramada, Experts for Security and Global Affairs Association, Bucharest

“Ukraine’s Relations to Russia before and during the Russian-Ukrainian War”
Igor Gretskiy, St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg

16:00 Panel Two: “Case Studies of Ukraine’s Bilateral Relations after 1991”

“Ukraine’s Relations to Belarus”
Yauheni Preiherman, Minsk Dialogue Council on International Relations

“Ukraine’s Relations to Azerbaijan”
Jamila Ismayilzada & Rusif Huseynov, Topchubashov Center, Baku

“Ukraine’s Relations to Slovakia”
Alisa Muzergues, Independent Researcher, Bratislava

“Ukraine’s Relations to the Czech Republic”
David Stulik, European Values Centre for Security Policy, Prague

17:30 Panel Three: “Ukraine, Austria and East-Central European Multilateral Structures”

“Austria’s Relations to Post-Maidan Ukraine on the Backdrop of the ‘Russian Factor’”
Martin Malek, National Defense Academy of Austria, Vienna

“Macro-Regionalization vs. ‘Minilateralism’: Chances and Challenges in the Danube Region”
Sebastian Schäffer, Institute for the Danube Region and Central Europe, Vienna

“Abortive and Future Intermaria: NATObis, GUAM, CDC etc. & the ‘Gray Zone’”
Andreas Umland, Ukrainian Institute for the Future, Kyiv

19:00 Concluding Remarks by the Organizers

Rainard Kloucek, Paneuropa-Union, Vienna
Pavlo Klimkin, Ukrainian Institute for the Future, Kyiv
Andreas Umland, Ukrainian Institute for the Future, Kyiv
Sebastian Schäffer, Institute for the Danube Region and Central Europe, Vienna

19:30 End

You can find the PDF version of the conference program attached.

  • Beginn: Freitag, 18. September 2020, 14:20 Uhr
  • Ende: Freitag, 18. September 2020, 19:30 Uhr
  • Ort: Zoom Livestream & IDM, Vienna
  • Auskunft: Mag. Sebastian Schäffer, MA
  • Auskunft E-Mail: s.schaeffer@idm.at

Program Ukraine and CEE Conference 2020.pdf

TOC: Russ. Forum. Vol. 17: Germany & Russia, Donbas War, Ukrain. Decentralization, Literature, Populism, Poroshenko

Insert picture description

Форум новейшей восточноевропейской истории и культуры. 2020. T. 17. №№ 1-2
Open access: https://lnkd.in/dg-5iXQ
Contributions by: Marlene LaruelleValentyna RomanovaLeonid LuksVlad Mykhnenko and others.
Distributed by ibidem-Verlag.

I. Русские #европейцы (9)
II. Страницы новейшей истории
III. #Политология
IV. #Этнология
V. #Историякультуры
VI. Эссе
VII. Рецензии
VIII. Трибуна
Коротко об авторах


Earlier “Forum” issues: https://lnkd.in/e5uAR22


Articles series on post-Corona Ukrainian IR with Pavlo Klimkin. Part 1: April 2020


Pavlo Klimkin and myself recently started, within the Ukrainian Institute for the Future, a series of jointly authored articles on Ukraine’s international relations, during and after the pandemic. Below are the links to the Academia.edu PDFs of the first such articles published during April 2020. These are various versions, excerpts and translations of two larger texts published, in different editions, in Ukrainian, English, German and Russian. More such texts (including in Polish) are forthcoming.

Coronavirus proves what Ukrainians already knew — the UN doesn’t work // Atlantic Council, 2020

Прекрасний новий світ…: Роздуми про безпеку людства, перезавантаження міжнародної системи та долю України після пандемії // Дзеркало тижня, 2020

Прекрасный новый мир…: Раздумья о безопасности человечества, перезагрузке международной системы и судьбе Украины после пандемии // Зеркало недели, 2020

Die Corona-Krise als Wendepunkt: Weltpolitik und die Ukraine // GSP-Einblick, 2020

Grey Zone Politics: Why Ukraine Needs Creative International Cooperation // European Council on Foreign Relations, 2020

Альтернативні шляхи західної інтеграції України під час та після коронакризи: Як Києву реагувати на нову геополітичну ситуацію, в якій опинилися країни східноєвропейської «сірої зони»? // VoxUkraine , 2020

Альтернативные пути западной интеграции Украины во время и после коронакризиса: Как Киеву реагировать на новую геополитическую ситуацию, в которой оказались страны восточноевропейской «серой зоны»? // VoxUkraine, 2020


Some additional oral reflections on our prognoses in Ukrainian and Russian, with Liudmyla Nemyria of UkrLife TV: