Publications in the result of 2016-2018 Jean Monnet Project ' EU's Comprehensive Approach to External Conflict and Crisis Management'
Unstable Status Quo or Costly Stability (report on the conflict in Ukraine, published by Kennan Institute, Washington DC)
Donbas, Pabdora's Box: Shortcomings of the Proxy War Approach (research report publised by Kennan Institute, Washington DC)
'The Logic of Competitive Influence-Seeking: Russia, Ukraine and Conflict in Donbas' (research article published by Post Soviet Affairs, 2018)
Remember the Cold War? (published by Washington Post)
In the Cross-Hairs of Great Powers? Competitive Influence Seeking in the European Neighbourhood (draft of research monograph)
“Crisis Management and Conflict Prevention in Eastern Europe and the Balkans: Lessons for Ukraine-EU Cooperation” (In English)
Contributes to the debate on reinforcing the European Union’s crisis management and emergency response capabilities, offering a genuinely comparative approach and focusing on the evolving ability of the Union to respond to emergencies and disasters through more effective institutional and cross border cooperation. Drawing on a series of case studies conducted by the participants of the 2012 Jean Monnet Seminar “Ukraine-EU Cooperation in Crisis Management and Disaster Risk Reduction: Sharing Best Practices, Building Effective Capabilities”, this book aims at reinforcing the conflict prevention and disaster risk reduction agenda as an important subfield of EU security studies and integrate it with the study of other security challenges.
"Human Security in a Changing World" (In Ukrainian)
The importance of studying security and of studying it well
National, regional and international security remain head line grabbing topics high on the agenda of policy makers and publics alike. From the cowardly attacks at the Boston Marathon on 15 April 2013 to the high levels of violence in Iraq in the run-up to the country’s elections in Spring 2013, from the now two-year civil war in Syria that has so far killed an estimated 70,000 people and displaced close to a million within Syria and across the borders especially to Jordan and Turkey, to the escalation of tensions on the Korean peninsula – security threats are as manifold in their manifestation as they are varied in their nature. While publics have learned to live with higher threat levels and while policy makers have become gradually more adept at managing and containing these threats, and in a few cases even prevent them, many of the underlying dynamics of contemporary security issues are poorly understood. Understanding the causes and consequences of contemporary security threats, and devising adequate responses to them, requires deep, systematic and sustained engagement with the issues at hand. This is a task, first and foremost for scholars and analysts, and they must be able to ‘package’ their insights in ways that help policy makers, media professionals, and the wider public to make sense of security and insecurity in their own environments. And this is where things get complicated… Scholars and analysts may perhaps be able to forge some vague consensus on what security is in the very broadest terms as something that implies a lack of threats to certain cherished goods (such as one’s life), but security, and even more so how to obtain it, are essentially contested concepts in the social sciences, they are often philosophically and ideologically coloured, and analysed through relatively rigid theoretical and methodological frameworks. A classical Realist perspective on security that focuses on the state as the object that needs to be secure cannot but be rather different in its assumptions and conclusions from an emancipatory approach that is concerned with the security of human beings and takes a more comprehensive approach to what security means and how it can be obtained than concentrating primarily on balance-of power logics. Thus, where we start with our study of security (e.g., the state vs. the human being) and how we do it (e.g., a rationalist vs. a constructivist account) fundamentally affects what we see as the safest means of obtaining security (getting rid of nuclear weapons or building ever more and more powerful ones of them). These are, of course, to some extent ideal-typical caricatures of what has become a very wide and nuanced field of thoughtful academic analysis, but it illustrates the important point that there is no one single one-size-fits-all kind of security and no magic silver bullet to achieve it. But the complexity does not end there. Even if there were greater consensus among scholars and analysts, security would still look very differently from different vantage points. Saddam Hussein, Muammar Ghadhafi, and Bashar al-Assad have look at their security very differently compared to their opponents. And as security dilemmas become entrenched, survival at all costs becomes the overriding objective with all its self-defeating and self-fulfilling implications. Security also looks differently from Pyongyang and Seoul and Tokyo and Beijing, as it does from Washington compared with Moscow, Kiev compared with Brussels. That is not to say that policy makers in either of these places do not, by and large, have an interest in being secure. However, being secure from each other is different from being secure from common threats like climate change. And individual, party or regime interests all too often trump common interests. These difficulties in the study and practice of national, regional, and international security are expertly explored in Tetyana Malyarenko’s excellent book. Drawing on her wide-ranging knowledge and understanding of different types of security, different theoretical and methodological approaches to the study of security, and the different spaces and arenas in which security remains a contested public and private good, she offers her readers no ready-made answers but rather, and much more importantly, equips them with the tools to apply themselves to the study of security. Given the relative novelty of the security studies discipline in Ukraine, this is sure to be the standard-setting text book on security for years, if not decades, to come. Students at all level of their university and professional education will greatly benefit from this fine volume written by one of their country’s foremost security scholars. I feel honoured to have been invited to offer some reflections of my own in this foreword and wholeheartedly recommend this book to its intended audience.
Birmingham, April 2013 Stefan Wolff